Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.

Copy ordered, "of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Act are for the time being complied with."—[Mr. McNeill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TEXTILES (IMPORTS AN]) EXPORTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the imports and exports of hosiery made of silk and artificial silk and of all other textile materials, respectively, for the five months ended 31st May this year, and for comparison during the same periods in 1925 and 1926?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Particulars of the imports, exports and re-exports for which my hon. Friend asks, are fully set out on pages 66, 159 and 205 of the last issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." In the case of underwear and fancy hosiery, the goods described as being of "Other textile materials" are no doubt mainly silk and artificial silk goods.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hosiery imported would, if made in this country, provide sufficient work for all the unemployed in the hosiery trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the General Report on the Census of Production is likely to be completed; and if the
Report on the Engineering Trades is the last of the preliminary Reports?

Sir. P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 12th April to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power), a copy of which I am sending him. I may add that, in 16 issues of the Board of Trade Journal, there have now been published reports on approximately one-half of the industries covered by the Census.

RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the figures of the trade between this country and Russia during the month of June last?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The figures for which the hon. and gallant Member asks will not be ready for about three weeks. When they are available I will have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

OLD NEWSPAPERS (EXPORTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the exports of wrapping and packing paper as shown in the Trade and Navigation Returns consist in part of old newspapers; and if so, can he state to what extent?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Exports of old newspapers are not included in any of the exports of wrapping and packing paper enumerated in this year's monthly accounts of Trade and Navigation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether they have been included in the past?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I think they were included in earlier years.

FRANCE (COAL IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the probability of the French embargo on British coal being removed as a result of the negotiations carried on by His Majesty's Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer
given to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on 27th June, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. PALING: Is it a fact that the French authorities reported that they would not remove this embargo until the stocks of about 3,000,000 tons of coal which had accumulated had been got rid of?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think they said that. They have said that what they are looking to is to limit for the time being their total imports by about 250,000 tons. In the answer to which I have referred, I gave the House the number of licences which have already been granted.

Mr. PALING: Do not they say that this embargo is put on mainly because they have such huge stacks in France?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, that is so.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners in South Wales who have received notice to quit their employment since the French licensing scheme was brought into operation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am afraid I have no information on this point.

Mr. EDWARDS: Do not the Department receive at least monthly reports as to the number of men employed?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, that is so, and in a week or ten days I shall have a report of the number of unemployed miners in South Wales, bringing it up to the end of June. The hon. Member can compare it with the number at the end of May and that will give him exactly the information he is asking for.

Mr. EDWARDS: Will those figures be sent to me or will it be necessary to put down another question?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will send them, or, if the hon. Member likes to put a question down, I will give them in the form of an answer.

Mr. BATEY: When the figures are being given for South Wales, could not we have them for the whole of the country?

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member likes to put down a question, I will consider that.

Mr. BATEY: Would it be possible for the Minister to tell us not only the number of miners who are unemployed receiving relief but those who have been cut off from unemployment benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: That, of course, is an entirely different question, but, if the hon. Member quts a question down, I will give him what information I have.

STONEHENGE (WAR OFFICE BUILDINGS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a row of 18 square red and yellow steel huts or houses have been erected by the war Office on Lark Hill, within a mile and a half of Stonehenge; that the circle of Stonehenge is orientated in that direction, so that the sunrise at the summer solstice is in line with the land on Which these huts now are; when he intends to have these huts removed; whether permanent brick and slate barracks are to be erected on Lark Hill within full view of this national monument; and whether he will see some other site is available equally suitable for military purposes but further away from Stonehenge?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): As regards the first part of the question, if the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the 36 married quarters erected in steel construction at Lark Hill Camp last year, I am advised that they are clear of the line of sight of the midsummer sun's rise as viewed from Stonehenge and special steps have already been taken to ensure that that line continues to be kept clear so far as future buildings are concerned. As regards the last part of the question, a scheme is under consideration for the replacement by permanent barracks of the temporary hutments at Larkhill, which are falling into disrepair and involve excessive charges for maintenance. Roads, drains, water supply and electric light facilities already exist at Lark Rill, and it would therefore be impossible
to justify the heavy expenditure involved in removal to another site, even were a suitable alternative available.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that it is not only a question of the line of the sun's rising, but the right of the whole people to have this monument in a setting where its surroundings are not impaired by present-day buildings of the War Office?

Commodore KING: It depends, of course, on the size of the setting which the hon. and gallant Member requires. As he said in his question, these buildings are a mile-and-a-half away.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: But does not the hon. and gallant Member know that Stonehenge is quite unique in its character, and that it is worth while to preserve it?

Commodore KING: Oh, yes; I have heard of Stonehenge, and I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member that it is very undesirable that the amenities should be destroyed.

Commander WILLIAMS: According to the question, is not the colour of these huts the real cause of the trouble?

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what is the excessive charge for maintenance mentioned in the original answer?

Commodore KING: No, It is obvious that if buildings are falling into disrepair, and they are only temporary huts, it is better that they should be replaced by permanent buildings which will last for some years.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total area of land owned or leased by the War Office, or on which a prior lien is held, on Salisbury Plain and in the district?

Commodore KING: The War Department land on Salisbury Plain and in the district, all of which is freehold, comprises 58,210 acres, of which 1,508 acres is in the permanent occupation of the Air Ministry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, why cannot the hon. and gallant Member put his huts and buildings somewhere else than within a mile-and-a-half of Stonehenge? He has 58,000 acres to play with.

Commodore KING: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that this land is not held as building sites. It is largely used as an artillery range, and we cannot place buildings in the line of fire.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member is really trifling with the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate this question now.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: I have no desire to debate it, Sir, but I think the answer I have just received is a trifling one.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member may think that, but this is not the time to say it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE (TEMPORARY TYPISTS).

Mr. SNELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of temporary staff employed in headquarters and out-station offices in his Department, respectively, in each of the following grades: Grade 1 shorthand-typists, Grade 2 shorthand-typists, Grade 1 copying-typists, and Grade 2 copying-typists; and whether he can state the average length of service of the shorthand-typists and copying-typists concerned?

Commodore KING: Such information as is available has been put in tabular form, and I will therefore, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The figures for the War Office are as follow:


—
Numbers.
Average Years.
Service: Months.


Shorthand Typists.





Grade I
2
9
10


Grade II
1
11
3


Typists.





Grade I
34
9
6


Grade II
Nil
—
—


Figures are not available in regard to those employed outside.

WASTAGE AND RECRUITMENT.

Sir JOHN POWER: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total wastage of the Civil Service from all causes during the year ended 31st March; and the total number of persons recruited for the service during the same period?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McNeill): The net result of the operation of the two processes referred to by my hon. Friend will be found by a comparison of the total staffs of Government Departments as shown in the statement presented to Parliament quarterly. I am sending him copies of the statements relating to the financial year 1926–27. A detailed analysis giving the total wastage and total recruitment during the financial year 1926–27 is not at present available.

CLERICAL GRADES, BROMLEY.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which scale of pay should operate for P class clerical and temporary clerical grades employed in the various Government offices in Bromley, Kent?

Mr. McNEILL: The provincial scale is payable to members of the classes referred to employed in Bromley, Kent.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what are the corresponding figures for Leith?

WRITING ASSISTANTS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the authorised complement of writing assistants in headquarters departments of the Civil Service; how many have so far been appointed; and how many have been promoted to the clerical class since January, 1925?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not in possession of statistics compiled on the basis indicated. Particulars as to the number of posts of writing assistants, for which provision is made on the Votes of each Department, will be found in the Estimates for the current financial year. The total number of writing assistants actually employed on 1st April, 1926, was 4,603, but I am unable to allocate this figure between headquarters and other stations. The number of writing assistants promoted
to other grades in the period 1st April, 1923, to 31st March, 1926, was 897. Later particulars are not available.

MINI STRY OF LAROUR (TEMPORARY MESSENGERS, CARDIFF).

Mr. E. BROWN: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether temporary messengers employed in the Divisional Office, Ministry of Labour, Cardiff, are entitled to an annual issue of uniform, as in the case of all other Departments; and, if so, the reason for the non-issue of such uniform to these temporary messengers?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. It has not hitherto been the practice to supply uniform in these cases, but the question is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION FUND.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what balance was left in the Scottish Education Fund for each of the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, and 1926, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): As the answer to this question contains a number of figures, my right hon. Friend will, with the hon. Member's permission, cause it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He adds that the average balance is £38,322.

Following are the figures:


Year beginning 1st April.
Balance of Education (Scotland) Fund at end of year.







£
s.
d.


1920
…
…
…
…
26,673
3
6


1921
…
…
…
…
50,156
16
5


1922
…
…
…
…
26,173
16
1


1923
…
…
…
…
49,844
4
2


1924
…
…
…
…
27,805
10
10


1925
…
…
…
…
36,075
6
8


1926
…
…
…
…
51,525
15
10

Mr. WESTWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum of money will be allocated among the education authorities of Scotland, and its method of allocation, for the year 1927–28; and what balance will remain unallocated from the Scottish Education Fund for the same Year?

Major ELLIOT: It is estimated that the amount of grant payable to education authorities in Scotland for the year 1927–28 will be not less than the amount payable in respect of the preceding year, namely, 16,345,000. The method of allocation is set forth in detail in the Education Authorities (Scotland) Grant Regulations, 1927, which were laid before Parliament on 21st June. With regard to the last part of the question, it is impossible at this date to state the amount of the balance of the Education (Scotland) Fund at 31st March next, but my right hon. Friend sees no reason to anticipate that it will represent any considerable departure from the average.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not expected that there will be £100,000 in hand at the end of the financial year?

Major ELLIOT: I simply say we do not expect that there will be any considerable departure from the average.

HEATHER BURNING ACT.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any applications for the issue of orders under the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926, have been received by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland during the present year?

Major ELLIOT: The answer is in the negative.

EMPIRE MARKETING FUND (GRANT).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland with regard to the expenditure of publicity grants from the Empire Marketing Fund; and what particular classes of home-grown produce it has been decided to support by such advertisements?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have been asked reply to this question Expenditure on publicity is under the direct control of the Empire Marketing Board in conjunction with His Majesty's Stationery Office, and, therefore, no grants for publicity purposes have been made to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. The policy of the Empire Marketing Board is to put the claims of the home agricultural producer, including, of course, the Scottish producer, in the forefront of its publicity.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can my right hon. hon. Friend say what special steps are taken to see that the interests of the Scottish home producer are safeguarded, and what steps are taken to pursue this compaign in the large industrial centres in Scotland?

Mr. AMERY: The campaign is being carried out in all the main industrial centres of Scotland as well as in England, and attention is drawn to the desirability of purchasing the produce of the home grower.

SMALL HOLDINGS, ROUXRT.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a number of smallholders in the Parish of Rogart, in the County of Sutherland, have been upwards of 20 years applying in a constitutional manner for the enlargement of their holdings off the farm of Sciberscross; and whether, in view of the fact that a further application was submitted to the Board of Agriculture last year, he is yet in a position to state what action will be taken to obtain those enlargements for the applicants?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend is aware that for a considerable period there have been recurrent applications for enlargements from the farm mentioned. The farm is let on a 14 years lease from Whit Sunday, 1926. Inquiry is being made into the question whether, having regard to considerations of cost and the other circumstances, a scheme of land settlement on this farm should be developed, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement in the matter.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when these inquiries are likely to be concluded, as they have been going on for a very long time?

Major ELLIOT: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

NATIONAL RESOURCES (SURVEY).

Mr. G. HALL: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any further report may soon be anticipated from the Committee of the Physical and Chemical Survey of
National Coal Resources; and what are the names of those serving on the Committee?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have been asked to reply. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension as to the organisation of the Physical and Chemical Survey of the National Coal Resources, and I would refer him to the Annual Reports of the Fuel Research Board for 1924 and 1925 for full information on this point. There are at present six local committees for this survey, containing in all 56 members. Up to date particulars are contained in the Annual Report of Fuel Research Board for 1926, which will be published this week. This also contains a list of all publications of the Board. Reports on various details of the work are published as rapidly as they can be prepared; the ninth paper of the Survey Series is in the Press, and others are in an advanced stage of preparation.

OUTPUT.

Mr. LEE: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has figures showing how the output per man-shift in the coal mines where full time is being worked compares with the output where less than full time is being worked; and what is the amount of difference per man-shift thus caused in the output?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): No Sir, no such figures are available.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Cannot figures be obtained from the ascertainments which are published by each county month by month?

Colonel LANE FOX: No Sir, because this question asks for the details of individual collieries, which cannot be obtained.

Mr. WILLIAMS: is the right hon. and gallant Member not aware that the Yorkshire ascertainments show month by month the output per shift worked at the coal base and the output for the whole of the people working at the collieries, below the ground and on the surface; and can he not extract from those monthly publications the information sought for in this question?

Colonel LANE FOX: No Sir. The figures refer to the whole district, and this would involve dissecting the whole of the figures and taking out the details for each colliery.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the figures are not given for each individual colliery, or given for each county, and does not the right hon. and gallant Member think that the amount of work involved would be very light indeed, and that as this Government passed the Eight Hours Act we ought to know the actual output per man?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have nothing to add to what I have said. It would involve a great deal of work, and I do not think the results would be worth the labour involved.

Commander WILLIAMS: Would the ascertainment of these figures result in giving any man working in the mines a single day's work?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that when the actual figures are known it will be better understood how many mine workers have been thrown out of work through this extra hour being added to the working day?

ORGANISATION.

Mr. G. HALL: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the amount of distress in South Wales, especially in the Aberdare and Mountain Ash areas; that numbers of collieries are closing down, while others are working but a few days per week; and whether he can now state what steps the Government propose taking to deal with this situation?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 23rd June to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), to which I have nothing to add at present.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Government have considered dealing with this depression in the coal industry on the lines of last year by again increasing the hours of miners?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. No such suggestion has been made. I would
point out that the amount of unemployment has certainly not been made any worse by that. There are many cases where pits that are working longer hours now would certainly not he working at all if the hours had remained at seven and the cost of production had not been reduced.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are the Government declining to take any steps at all to provide work for those who are out of work and the hundreds of thousands of miners who are on short time, neither of whom are receiving sufficient to live on? Are we to understand that the Government are simply doing nothing to provide these people with work?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the answer I gave some days ago he will see that is not the case.

Mr. BATEY: Cannot we be told to-day, in answer to this question, what steps the Government are taking now or are likely to take to relieve the depression?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. As I said in my answer, I have nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House whether the Government really are doing something to provide work for these people, and, if they are not, will he tell us why they are doing nothing?

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that the Coal Commission Report told us that the only way to improve employment and conditions was to see to the revival of the steel trade, and will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with his colleagues to see what can be done to bring that about?

Mr. BATEY: What are you going to do about it?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 16.
(for Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON) asked the Secretary for Mines whether any action has been taken and, if so, what action, in consequence of the Reports of the Departmental Committee on Co-operative Selling in the Coal Mining Industry, 1926?

Colonel LANE FOX: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to a question by my Noble
Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) on 23rd June.

FUEL RESEARCH (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS).

Mr. FREDERICK HALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing importance of the question of research into the scientific treatment of coal, arrangements can be made for questions in the House on this subject to be replied to by the Secretary for Mines and not by the President of the Board of Education?

Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed by the Lord President of the Council that it is considered that one Minister should be responsible for answering all questions affecting the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, whether they relate to fuel research or other matters, and that the President of the Board of Education is the Minister to whom this duty is assigned under the scheme, dated the 23rd July, 1915, for the organisation and development of scientific and industrial research (Cd. 8005). The Prime Minister regrets, therefore, that he cannot see his way to making the change suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. PALING: In view of the inadequate answers given to questions on this subject by the Board of Education, is not this the time to increase the power of the Mines Department rather than to abolish the Department?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR PASSENGER VEHICLES.

Mr. LOOKER: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the desirability of taking power to make Regulations limiting the size and passenger-carrying capacity of heavy motor vehicles carrying more than eight passengers; and, if so, what limitations are contemplated?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): It is my intention to make in the near future an Order dealing with the construction of heavy motor cars. I propose to impose for the
first time general limitations upon overall length, and, in respect of four-wheeled public service passenger vehicles, to prescribe limits of laden weight lower than those now permitted for heavy motor cars generally. Seating capacity is indirectly controlled by the limitation of length, width and weight. The proposed Order covers a good deal of ground, and I cannot, therefore, go into details now, and must ask my hon. Friend to await the issue of the Order.

Mr. LOOKER: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think it desirable to indicate as soon as possible the nature of these Regulations, for public information and discussion?

Colonel ASHLEY: I quite agree. The Order will be issued without any avoidable delay.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will this only affect new vehicles, and not existing vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: Only new vehicles.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will it affect the new type of six-wheeled omnibuses which are now running on the streets?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should have to have notice of that question.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Will the proposal in regard to existing vehicles be worked over a term of years, and, in that case, can the Regulations relating to new vehicles be possibly more stringent than would otherwise be the case?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think it would be better to await the issue of the Order. If there be any specific point that my hon. Friend wants to raise, I shall be very glad to go into it.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Order apple to ordinary commercial vehicles as well as to passenger-carrying vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I really think it would be better if the House would await the issue of the Order. There are many very technical details, on which I should not like to answer off-hand.

Colonel DAY: In view of the great importance of this matter, could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when
the Order will be issued, so that all those interested could get to know the exact date?

Colonel ASHLEY: As soon as may be.

CHARS-A-BANOS (SPEED).

Mr. LOOKER: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, without waiting for the proposed Road Traffic Bill to become law, he will, in view of the rapidly-increasing danger to both passengers and the public arising from chars-a-bancs weighing upwards of six tons unloaded proceeding, with a full complement of passengers, at speeds of upwards of 40 and 45 miles an hour, bring in a short Bill to deal with this practice?

Colonel ASHLEY: The driving of motor coaches at the speeds referred to by my hon. Friend is an offence under the existing law, the enforcement of which is a matter for the police.

Mr. LOOKER: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend's attention been drawn to the recent case in which a char-a-banc loaded with passengers crashed into some level crossing gates, resulting in the death of two passengers; and that the Judge held that the evidence given by the passengers showed the vehicle was travelling at an excessive speed; and does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think it desirable in the public interest to make Regulations or provisions regarding this great danger at an earlier date than will otherwise be the case?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have said in my answer that the law already deals with such excessive speed, and that it is for the police to take action as they think fit to control this excessive speed. Any further questions on this point should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. LOOKER: Is it not possible to draw the attention of the county police authorities to this very dangerous practice, with a view to putting a stop to it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Sir J. NALL: Does not the fact that the Ministry of Transport have no control over this question of speed rather
indicate that it is high time that the question of the public safety on the roads was placed under one Department only?

Colonel ASHLEY: Not at all. It is perfectly clear that, if a certain law is passed by this House at the instigation of the Ministry of Transport, it falls to the police to carry it out, as in the case of any other law.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in considering these Regulations, bear in mind the fact that chars-a-bancs are used by the proletariat, and not by the plutocracy?

ACCIDENTS.

Colonel DAY: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to an accident which happened on Handcross Hill, on the Brighton Road, on Saturday, 25th June, in which the steering gear of a motor coach gave way and the brakes refused to act, causing several serious injuries; whether he has received any reports from the inspectors of his Department on this accident; and will he consider the introduction of legislation that will ensure public conveyances of this kind being periodically examined?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has been drawn to the accident referred to by the hon. Member, and I am obtaining a report on it from one of my officers. The draft Road Traffic Bill which I circulated some time ago provides for an original certification and for periodical examination of public service vehicles.

Colonel DAY: In view of the large number of accidents, cannot the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices with the Prime Minister to see that facilities are given to get that Bill through more quickly?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the state of public business, and the difficulty of keeping Members in August.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any information regarding the motor accident which took place last week on the Cobham Road where 15 persons were injured; and the time that elapsed before the injured persons received any treatment?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply to
this question. I have seen a full report from the police on the accident, but, as the coroner's inquest is still proceeding, I think it will be better for me to refrain from making any statement.

Mr. RAMSDEN: If I put the question down again in a week's time, will my hon. and gallant Friend be able to give the information?

Captain HACKING: I hope so, if the proceedings have terminated.

CANNOCK CHASE COLLIERIES LIGHT RAILWAY ORDER.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 25 and 20.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he can now state his reason for refusing the Cannock Chase Collieries Light Railway Order, in view of the need of further facilities for rail transport to deal with approximately 6,000,000 tons of coal per year from this area;
(2) whether he consulted the Secretary for Mines prior to refusing his sanction for the Cannock Chase Collieries Light Railway Order?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Mines Department was not consulted in the matter. My decision was based on the consideration of the Report of the public Inquiry held at Wolverhampton on the 15th, 16th and 17th March last, in the course of which evidence was given both for and against this application. My conclusion was that a sufficient case had not been made out to justify me in granting the Order.

Mr. ADAMSON: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the only opposition to this Measure was from a competing railway company, which has not yet carried out Orders it has had in hand for many years?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot agree with the view put forward by the hon. Member in his Supplementary Question. After very careful consideration, I felt that I could not take upon myself the responsibility of making that Order. As the hon. Member knows, if the promoters wish to proceed with the matter, it is open to them to proceed by Private Bill in Parliament.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Meanwhile, all these people will be out of work.

DANGEROUS DRIVING.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in addition to the suspension of a driving licence any other punishment for dangerous driving, he will also consider taking powers to deprive the offending driver of the use of his car for a specific period of time?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I am afraid I could not be responsible for proposing legislation on these lines.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that when the road hog of to-day loses his licence it does not prevent him from driving about in a machine. Would not the fact that his car was taken from him for two months bring it home far more vividly to the man who is a dangerous driver than losing his licence?

ELECTRICITY BOARD (CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENT).

Mr. HARDIE: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the acceptance by a member of the Electricity Board of a directorship in a company whose interests and profits are dependent upon such schemes as the electricity scheme; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: The conditions under which the members of the Central Electricity Board may be appointed and may act are laid down in Section 1 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, and I know of nothing that would warrant intervention on my part in connection with any such case as the hon. Member appears to have in mind.

M r. HARDIE: Was it not definitely understood, in Committee on the Bill, that anyone taking any part as a member of the Board would not in any way be connected directly or indirectly with anything having any connection with the production of electric power in this country?

Colonel ASHLEY: No; that only applies, if my recollection serves me, to the Chairman. In the case of a member of the Board, he would have to disclose any interest he had in a company if any operations of the Board were undertaken in connection with that company.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact, and within the memory of the Minister, that when this question of members apart from the Chairman of the Board was raised, it was agreed that no one would, directly or indirectly, have anything in the nature of an interest in any company that operated in the direction of the production of electricity?

Colonel ASHLEY: No; what was agred was the decision to which the Committee came.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEGRAPH SYSTEM (ESTIATATED Loss).

Mr. W. BAKER: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General Whether, in estimating the aggregate loss on the telegraph system since the date of the transfer of the telegraph service to the State, his Department has taken into account the value of the capital effects; and the estimated values of the buildings and plant at present in the possession of the telegraph section of his Department and the extent to which such effects can be set off against the estimated aggregate loss?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The figure of aggregate loss given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power), in my reply to his question of 11th May, was arrived at after allowing for the value of capital still represented by assets; in other words, it gave the cumulative net loss on capital account and operating account combined. The buildings sites and plant proper to the telegraph service stood in the books as at 31st March, 1926, at £8,700,000, but this sum cannot properly be set off against the estimated aggregate loss.

TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES, EAST HULL.

Mr. LUMLEY: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to increase the telegraphic facilities in East Hull?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I propose to afford facilities for handing in telegrams at the East Park post office; but, as the provision of a new line will probably be involved, I am afraid some little time must elapse before the facilities are available.

TELEPHONE DEVELOPMENT.

Sir J. POWER: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General whether and, if so, to what extent, the development of the telephone service has been delayed by delays in the erection of exchange buildings; and when he expects the arrears will be overtaken?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There have been a few cases in which building delays in the past have been a factor in retarding telephone development, but I am glad to say that, with the gradual disappearance of the difficulties due to the industrial troubles of last year, arrears are being steadily overtaken.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Have there been any other delays in telephone development—delays due to change in policy?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think I could say that there have been.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Not due to shortage of money?

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the number of men exclusively engaged by his Department in canvassing for the telephone service; and is any payment by results added to their salary?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I informed my hon. Friend on 28th June, the canvassing staff consists at present of rather over 400 officers, who are employed chiefly in canvassing for new business, but also share in the work involved by removals and cessations. They receive in addition to salary a commission on new orders obtained as a result of their personal efforts.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the amount of commission on each order obtained?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Approximately 2s. for a new line and a shilling for an extension.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think this number is anything like sufficient to deal with the whole country?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think in the present state of plant and development it is ample.

EAST AFRICA (FEDERATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give an assurance that any federation of East Africa will be submitted to this House in the form of a Bill, in view of the importance of such a step to the future of the native inhabitants?

Mr. AMERY: Pending a decision as to policy, it would be premature to consider the question of procedure.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we have it from the right hon. Gentleman that if any such big change of policy takes place it would not be by Order-in-Council, but would be similar to the Federation of South Africa or Canada and passed through this House?

Mr. AMERY: It need not necessarily be similar to those. It might be more similar similar to the Union of the two Nigerias. I should have to wait for the definite recommendation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I not right in saying the Union of the two Nigerias, was done by Order-in-Council and not through the House of Commons? What I am anxious to ascertain is whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates passing this Federation in East Africa through the House or by the act of his own Department.

Mr. AMERY: My answer was that I should like, first of all, to see what policy is proposed before I decide what is the best way to carry it out.

SINAI MILITARY RAILWAY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give assurances that the Palestinian railway from the canal to the frontier will not be handed over to other management without the House of Commons being consulted in the matter; and whether the Palestinian administration favours such a transfer?

Mr. AMERY: I take the question to refer to the Sinai military railway, which lies outside Palestine territory though it is maintained and operated for the present by the Palestine railway administration on behalf of His Majesty's
Government. I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject raised in the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, whether the Palestinian administration favour such a transfer?

Mr. AMERY: Not as far as I am aware.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman initiated these proposals from this side?

Mr. AMERY: No, I have initiated no proposals. The right hon. Gentleman has initiated some.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then are we to understand that there are no such proposals in being at present?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware of any proposals. Of course, the terms under which a railway is operated on Egyptian territory are a matter which both Governments can raise if they want to, but, as far as I am concerned, I am not initiating any proposals.

EMPIRE COTTON (ACREAGE).

Sir J. POWER: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the total acreage in the Empire, except in India, devoted to the growing of cotton during the present year compares with that of the last two years?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that so far as the Colonies and Protectorates are concerned, it is not possible to give statistics of total average under cotton cultivation. In the Tropical African Dependencies, by far the greater part of the cotton is grown by native Africans on their own smallholdings, and as the natives are continually moving from place to place, the acreage under cultivation is constantly changing.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (PAINTINGS).

Mr. LAWSON: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Rome Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the picture depicting the Speaker being held down in the Chair, formerly hung in St. Stephen's Hall, is now to remain permanently in
Committee Room 14; and whether it is possible to find a more public place for this picture?

Captain HACKING: (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend regrets he is unable to find a more public place for this picture.

Mr. LAWSON: Are there not pictures in public places of much less historic value but more esteemed by the House and the public? Would not an exchange of such pictures be possible?

Captain HACKING: If anyone has any suggestions to make, my noble Friend will give them every sympathetic consideration.

Sir J. NALL: Might not the pictures displaced from St. Stephen's Hall very well be placed in Westminster Hall, particularly the one of the Unknown Warrior?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir. I think there was a general expression of disapproval of pictures being put in Westminster Hall.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider substituting for the unfinished picture of the recipient of backsheesh, which has now crept in St. Stephen's Hall, this picture which has been taken away?

Captain HACKING: I think I answered that question rather fully a few days ago, and I have no addition to make to the answer I have given.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: Is not this a rare opportunity to get rid of this disgraceful picture and put something in its place which would be more true to history than it is?

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the Department responsible for these pictures take more into review the diabolical paintings that are now being allocated to it, and see to it that before any painting is placed in this building it shall be worthy as a work of art?

Captain HACKING: If the hon. Member was referring to the pictures just placed in St. Stephen's Hall—

Mr. MacLAREN: No, No!

Captain HACKING: I think they are works of art. As far as the question of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) is concerned, he does not seem to think that this picture is true to history.

Mr. BROWN: Too true. The disgrace about it is that it is true to history.

Captain HACKING: The hon. Member who asked me a question two days ago said it was not true to history.

Mr. JOHNSTON: No, I did not. I said nothing of the sort. I said the episode chosen for this picture was a national insult and a humiliation because it was true.

Captain HACKING: The hon. Member said that actually money passed—

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes.

Captain HACKING: —but it is not shown in the picture.

Mr, MacLAREN: On a point of explanation. What I put as a Supplementary Question was not a reflection on the paintings now in the New Central Hall. But paintings have been removed from the Central Hall which from the point of view of art were really a disgrace to the building.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES (REGULATION) ACT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. BUXTON: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the number of prosecutions that have been instituted by the Ministry under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924; the amount of fines imposed; and the total amount of wages recovered?

Viscount CURZON: I have been asked to reply. The number of prosecutions which have been instituted under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, up to the present date is 176, as a result of which fines amounting to £554 have been inflicted and £3,234 in arrears of wages have been recovered on behalf of the workers concerned.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How many of these cases were found directly by the inspectors and how many were sent along to the Department by trade unions?

Viscount CURZON: I must have notice of that question.

NERVOUS DISEASES (VACCINE LYMPH).

Colonel DAY: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish the full Reports of the Committee of inquiry which inquired into post-vaccinal encephalitis appointed by his Department at the end of 1924?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Committee appointed by one of my right hon. Friend's predecessors in 1923. The Terms of Reference of that Committee were limited to the consideration of the question whether any further experimental research could be initiated to throw light on the possibilities of vaccine lymph producing nervous diseases as a complication of vaccinia. The Committee recommended that further research was desirable and their report was referred to and is under the consideration of, the Committee on Vaccination which is now sitting. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not propose to consider the question of publishing the Report of the Committee appointed in 1923 until he has received a Report from the present Committee.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is referred to rather extensively on the Continent, and, if that be so, does he not think it would be better to publish a report in this country?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait and see what the Sub-committee do.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

WESTMINSTER.

Mr. BUXTON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the problem of housing conditions in Westminster; and what steps the local authority are taking in order to alleviate the distress caused by these conditions?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention has from time to time been
drawn to the housing conditions in Westminster. The city council have completed 40 tenements and have under construction a further 118 flats. It is understood that they have also accepted an offer from the London County Council for the allocation to Westminster families of 50 houses on the county council's estate at Hammersmith. The high cost of land in Westminster materially increases the difficulty of providing housing accommodation in the City at a reasonable rent, and there is no doubt that relief for the overcrowded population of Central London must come, in the main, from the large building schemes of the London County Council.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the Minister, if necessary, use his powers to stimulate further action by the local authorities in view of the intolerable conditions revealed by this survey?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the Westminster Council, at any rate, is using a good many endeavours. I have said we must look, so far as housing conditions in Westminster are concerned, more to the London County Council.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the reason for the high cost of building in Westminster?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter altogether.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, bad as housing conditions are in Westminster, they are even worse in Shoreditch?

Sir K. WOOD: Improvement is steadily being made in all parts of London.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman use his good offices to persuade the London County Council to build 100 instead of 50?

Sir K. WOOD: I have no reason to think the London County Council are not alive to the necessity of the case.

ISLE OF WIGHT.

Mr. LAWSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses for the working classes in each of the parishes
of the rural district of the Isle of Wight were on 30th June, 1927, not in all respects fit for habitation; how many such houses were actually unfit for habitation; how many houses for the working classes are in the opinion of the medical officer of health for that rural district required to take the place of houses actually unfit for habitation or so out of repair as not to be worth repairing; how many closing orders and repairing notices were during the 12 months ended on that date recommended by the medical officer, and how many were issued by the local authority; in how many cases repairing notices have been complied with and how many closing orders determined in that period; how many closing orders and repairing notices have been enforced; how many inspections under Section 8 of the Housing Act, 1925, have been carried out in that period; and how many working-class houses have during each of the three years ended 30th June, 1925, 30th June, 1926, and 30th June, 1927, respectively, been rendered in all respects reasonably fit for habitation pursuant to orders, notices, or other representations of the local authority?

Sir K. WOOD: I have asked the local authority to furnish as far as possible, the information which the hon. Member desires, and will communicate with him when I have received a reply from them.

UNEMPLOYMENT (SOUTHWARK).

Mr. NAYLOR: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of vacancies notified to the Newington (Walworth Road) Employment Exchange during the three months ending May, and the proportion of these received through the Southwark Borough Council and Board of Guardians, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the period of 13 weeks ended 23rd May, 1927, 2,769 vacancies for employment were notified to the Borough Employment Exchange. Of this number, four were notified by the Southwark Borough Council and one by the Southwark Board of Guardians.

Colonel DAY: In view of the great number the Minister mentioned for Southwark in a previous reply, can he say whether anything will be done to try to relieve unemployment in that borough?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (AVALENIAN REFUGEES).

Mr. BUXTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister to state the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the League of Nations refugee settlement plan in Syria, for which voluntary financial support is invited from the public?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. While His Majesty's Government are not prepared, for the reasons explained in the reply to the right hon. Gentleman on the 18th of May, to consider a grant from public funds, the effort to secure the re-settlement of the Armenians in French Syria or elsewhere appears to them to be an eminently deserving object for private charity.

BETTING DUTY.

Colonel DAY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the State of collecting the Betting Duty to the most convenient recent date; how many additional civil servants have been engaged in order to carry out the work of collection; and what percentage of the total revenue derived from the tax has been expended in the cost of its collection?

Mr. R. McNEILL: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. For the rest, the position remains substantially as stated in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) on the 22nd February last.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is much of a surplus over the cost of collection?

Mr. McNEILL: Oh, yes; a very large surplus.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 3.
(for Mr. FENBY) asked the President, of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the the exemption orders applied for last year under Section 10 (5) of the Finance Act, 1926, in respect of hydroquinone, and lactic acid B.P., being products liable to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921,
have not yet been issued; that his Department are refusing to issue these exemption orders although the products in question are still not made in His Majesty's Dominions and that, in consequence, hospitals and other consumers of these products which have to be imported are compelled to pay at least one-third more than would otherwise he the case; and will he take steps to issue the exemption orders in question forthwith?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: An exemption order regarding hydroquinone was issued by the Treasury on 23rd June. Preparations for the manufacture in this country of B.P. lactic acid are well advanced, and the conditions for exemption laid down in Section 10 (5) of the Finance Act, 1926, are not therefore satisfied.

BRITISH ARMY (MECHANICAL TRANSPORT).

Sir J. NALL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Army Council to transfer the supply and maintenance of mechanical transport from the Royal Army Service Corps to the Royal Army Ordnance Corps; and, if so, whether the personnel now engaged will be transferred or whether new personnel will be established by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps?

Commodore KING: I have under consideration a proposed redistribution of duties in relation to mechanical transport, but am not yet in a position to make any detailed statement.

Sir J. NALL: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the policy adopted in recent years by the Army Service Corps will be continued and that there will be no break of continuity in this direction?

Commodore KING: I have just said that it is impossible to make any detailed statement.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

(Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating ;n the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are
applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Scarborough Gas Company (Consolidation) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

(No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Bury Estate Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

(Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with.)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Mersey Tunnel (Birkenhead Entrance, etc.) Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Comittee on Standing Orders.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].

(Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which arc applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Conway Extension) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hove Extension) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (New Sarum Extension) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Newcastle-under-Lyme Extension) Bill [Lords].
1096
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Workingham Extension) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
(No Standing Orders applicable.)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Aberdare Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PRO- CEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

Scottish Insurance Companies (Super-annuation Fund) (Substituted Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 4th July.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — POSTPONED CLAUSE 46.—(Transfer of sum from Road Fund to Exchequer.)

The CHAIRMAN: Sir Robert Sanders.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it intended to have a general discussion on the Amendment which is to be moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders)—in page 34, line 36, at the beginning to insert the words "On the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight"?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): On that point of Order. It would be more convenient to have a general discussion upon the next Amendment—in page 34, line 39, after the word "representing," to insert the words "twenty-five per cent. of "—which raises a much larger issue.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the next Amendment—in page 34, line 36, to leave out the words "in accordance with the directions of the Treasury"—or the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham)—after the word "representing" to insert the words "twenty-five per cent of."

Mr. CHURCHILL: I mean the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh.

The CHAIRMAN: Any general discussion upon any Amendment can only be by the general consent of the Committee. I do not know whether it makes very much difference, but in some ways, perhaps, it is more convenient to take the general discussion on the first Amendment.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I suggest that it would be better to take the general discussion on the first Amendment,
because if it is spread over three Amendments there is bound to be a certain amount of repetition.

Mr. SNOWDEN: In my opinion, it would he better to take the general discussion upon the first Amendment. If you rule strictly upon the first Amendment, the discussion would be very restricted and limited, because it simply raises the question of the date when the raid on the Road Fund shall come into operation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As you have said, Mr. Hope, it is only by the general consent of the Committee that we can take a general discussion on any of these Amendments. When a general discussion is raised on an Amendment which raises a very small point and there are other Amendments later which raise the whole question, what happens is that we have a long general discussion upon a purely formal Amendment, and afterwards we have a general discussion on each of the Amendments which raise the topic.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right there. I think there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion put forward that we could raise the whole issue upon the first Amendment, which, I understand, is to postpone the operation of the Clause.

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That raises the whole issue, if you would permit us to range generally, I have an Amendment down—in page 34, line 39, after the word "representing," to insert the words "half of," but I should not think of repeating my observations. I am not sure whether it would be in order on the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh to do so; but assuming it to he in order, I should not think of repeating the same observations. I should crave leave to make my statement in opposition to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the general Debate which would be raised on the first Amendment. Otherwise, we shall have a very truncated and mutilated discussion. We are bound, more or less, to discuss the merits upon the proposal of the right hon. Member for Wells; but
if we were strictly limited to the point raised in that Amendment, it would be a very unsatisfactory Debate. I should have thought that to have a general Debate on the first Amendment, would have the effect of limiting the Debate afterwards.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said, that it is for the advantage of the Committee to use some particular Amendment to deal with the real issue, but I am bound to examine the proposals because they can only be examined by general agreement from the point of view of ensuring that when there has been a thorough and prolonged discussion perfectly free and unlimited on some particular point, it is the general understanding that the other Amendments shall be dismissed as speedily as possible, having regard to any special point which they may raise.

The CHAIRMAN: If I am asked to rule on the point of Order, I should say that we cannot, unless everybody agrees, have a general discussion upon any of the Amendments, and, in that case, it would have to take place on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If it would meet the wishes of everyone" we might have a general discussion, say, on the first Amendment, and then, when we come to the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, we might have a Division, if so desired.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That would be quite agreeable to the Government.

Sir R. SANDERS: I beg to move, in page 34, line 36, at the beginning, to insert the words,
On the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.
On behalf of those hon. and right hon. Members who intend to move Amendments on this Clause and who attach great importance to the question, I may sax that we thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Commander Eyres Monsell) for not taking the discussion on the Road Fund in the small hours of this morning, and putting it off until this afternoon. On that, I shall have the agreement of all parties. The object of my Amendment is to postpone the evil day. My Amendment has this
advantage over the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh and the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), both of which have been quoted,, that in my Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer would eventually get the whole of the money, while under those two Amendments he would not.
I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us that he is compelled by financial necessity to adopt the course of taking this money from the Road Fund, and that if hp did not adopt that course, he would have to put a charge of something like fourpence on the Income Tax, which would be very painful to him. I am quite sure, as far as that goes, that we are all of one mind in our desire to spare the Chancellor of the Exchequer that painful duty. I think all parties in the Committee, certainly the party to which I belong, look with great suspicion upon these raids on the Road Fund. It is very likely the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain to us that this is not really taking the money out of the Road Fund, that it is really a book-keeping transaction by which he will finance their expenditure during each current year. We all admire the ingenuity of mind and the dexterity in debate of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer so often gives us proof, but it is very difficult for a bucolic Member addressing a bucolic audience to make them understand that it is possible to take £12,000,000 out of a certain fund and leave it no worse off after the process than it was before. That is the difficulty we have to meet in our constituencies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a county Member, and if he has not yet realised how strong is the feeling in the counties on this subject I shall be much surprised if his constituency does not make him feel it before very long.
The fact is that these road expenses are rising steadily. Whatever class of road you take the expenses are going up; and you cannot prevent it. I have been a member of the road committee of my own county council for a great many years past, and I am as much in favour of economy both in local and national administration as anybody. But when
you have these questions to deal with locally and have to go into the case of each particular road, it is very soon borne in upon you that it is bad economy to let any road go to rack and ruin, and beyond that, I think local authorities owe a debt to those who use their roads to see that those roads are as safe for traffic as is reasonably possible. Our county roads are in some way the most dangerous roads in the world, as they are almost invariably roads between hedges, and we constantly have, for the safety of the public, and to avoid the accidents which may occur and which have actually occurred, to make improvements in order to add to the safety of these roads. All this costs money. Hon. Members from every part of the country can get figures. I have asked for the figures from my own county, which I think is one of the most economical areas in England. I find, if you take the main or county roads, that the rate has gone up from 13d. in 1914 to 2s. in 1927. I have taken two district councils in my own neighbourhood. In Shepton Mallet the rate was 1s. 5d. in 1914, and 4s. 5d. in 1927; in Wincanton it was 1s. 3d. in 1914, and 2s. 9d. in 1927. That is, after making allowances for the grants which have been received from the Road Fund. It shows that the increase in the total charge in the case of one district is from 2s. 6d. to 6s. 5d. and from 2s. 4d. to 4s. 9d. in the other.
That is a very big increase, and I fancy that it is quite possible for some parts of the country to show more extreme cases, but I just put these forward as typical instances, and I think they make the case quite strong enough. It is to be remembered that the payment of rates is not quite like the payment of Income Tax. You only pay Income Tax on the income you receive. If you have no income, you pay no Income Tax. But you may be losing money, yet you still have to pay your rates just the same, and the fact that you are losing money does not prevent the rates from going up. That is the grievance, and it is a grievance which is accentuated by the fact that this increased expenditure is not caused by our own local traffic. It is bad enough to have to pay for expenses for which you yourselves are responsible, but it is much worse when
you have to pay for expenditure and damage over which you have no control, and for which you yourself and the county generally are not responsible. Take my own district. In my own county we have the heavy traffic going through in char-a-bancs from Bristol to Bournemouth. They are no good whatever to us in the county. They do not even stop at the public houses, and even if they did, owing to the recent wisdom of Parliament, they probably would not be able to get any refreshment at the time at which they would stop. That is the grievance which is felt, that we are spending money on damage that is caused by other people, and generally every district considers that the other people who are causing the damage are much richer and much better able to pay the bill than the district itself.
Our duty as representatives of these districts is to do what we can to get some remedy for this trouble. I do not want to ask for anything unreasonable. It is not our suggestion that what is really capital money should be taken and applied to purposes of income, nor do we ask that money should be given out of the general taxation to supply local needs of this sort. What we do ask is that the actual resources of the Road Fund should be used to the utmost extent to remedy the grievances which we are now putting forward. We were all very glad to read the announcement made in Cornwall the other day by the Prime Minister. I understand, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong, that announcement to mean that there is to be an increase of the grants upon what are known as second-class roads, and that on these alone it is to be 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. For that, we say. "Thank you." Some of those who are interested in the agricultural industry would possibly find that their efforts were more appreciated if, when they got something they asked for, they did say, ''Thank you." I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite freely that we are very grateful for the announcement made through the Prime Minister—

Mr. CHURCHILL: By the Prime Minister.

Sir R. SANDERS: The announcement made by the Prime Minister the other
day. [HON. MEMBERS "You have not got it yet!"] We have not got it yet, but we are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-affirm that announcement, as Minister of the Department responsible. I conclude he is going to do so, and I hope I am not premature in thanking him for it. We do not want to thank him only for past favours. We want to say something about the expectation of favours to come. We first ask him that this year it should apply not only to the Class 2 roads, but also to the district council grant-receiving roads. We reckon that would come to about £400,000. The amount given for that purpose last year was £1,300,000, and one-third of that sum would be about £400,000. That is the first thing for which we ask, but I have also been asked to bring to the Chancellor's notice the case of the urban district councils in rural areas. I had a letter the other day from the chairman of the county works committee in my own county, in which he said:
I sent you some time ago copy of a statement I made regarding the position of urban districts that are rural in character.
Having enumerated some of them, he proceeds:
All have very long mileages of unclassified roads. They receive no assistance from the special grant made for the relief of unclassified roads in rural districts. I have been to see the Ministry of Transport two or three times, but the present rule is that no grant can be made when the population exceeds one per acre, and that works out very unfairly in districts where you have a very long mileage of roads compared with the population, and where a penny rate only provides £60, £70, or £80. In the districts referred to, the main body of the population is situated in the actual town itself. As you know, in Shepton Mallet the majority of the population live within a radius of a mile and all the rest of the district is rural, with long lengths of road. That applies in other cases as well.
That position is being brought before a good many of us and it is one with which we ask the Chancellor to deal when he gets an opportunity. That is all we ask as regards this year's programme, but I hope the Chancellor will make some announcement as to the future. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith)—in page 34, line 42, at the end, to insert the words
such allowances or deductions being first made as when added to the revenues of the
said fund for the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, will enable provision to be made in respect of that year for—

(a) the payment of grants on the following basis, that is to say, sums equal to seventy-five per centum of the cost of maintenance and works in respect of first-class roads, fifty per centum of such cost in the case of second-class roads, and twenty-five per centum of such cost in the case of such unclassified roads as are eligible for grants; and.
(b) all other grants and payments ordinarily paid or made out of the said fund or falling to be paid or made in the course of that year out of the said fund pursuant to any engagement entered into by the Minister of Transport before the commencement of this Act."

I understand that Amendment is not in order, but the first part of it—paragraph (a)—represents very much what we ask for in future years, except that there should be an alteration—33⅓, per cent. Instead of 25 per cent. with regard to rural district roads. With the fund increasing as it is doing, I believe these alterations may be made in the near future. I think it has been already pressed upon the Chancellor, but perhaps I might again suggest it to him, that we think the time for big new construction has ceased. The Chancellor has said on more than one occasion that we have the best roads in Europe. I believe that to be true, and it seems to me that in the future what we want to do is not to go in for luxuries but for necessaries. We believe if there were no more luxury roads and no more raids upon the Road Fund, the reforms which we advocate might be brought about in a very short time. In regard to what we ask for this year, if the Chancellor has not actually the money in the Road Fund at the present time, I ask him to make us this promise—that if, when he comes to make up his accounts, he finds he has a balance on the right side, he will give us the benefit of it. It is not a very big sum for which we ask. It only comes to £400,000 and it would make an enormous difference if it were added to the concession promised by the Prime Minister. I hope the Chancellor would tell us now that, if he has the money in hand, he will give it to us for that purpose. I believe when he works out the accounts of the Road Fund towards the end of the year, he will probably find that the receipts are bigger than he expects. It is also probable that he will find that some of the expenditure which
has been budgeted for will not actually take place. For instance, I have here an answer given by the Minister of Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Sir T. Davies) on 22nd June which gives a very fair budget of the Road Fund in the coming year. In that answer I find the following item:
D.—Works (including Thames Bridges) recommended by the Royal Commission on London Cross-river Traffic, £1,000,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1927; cols. 1867–1868, Vol. 207.]
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Transport believe that that £1,000,000 is likely to come in the course of payment in the present year? If not, there is a fund at his disposal out of which the right hon. Gentleman might do something to help us. I have tried to put before him what we are asking. I will not use any hard word about it but if he is asking us to condone, what I will merely call a gigantic acquisition of other people's property, we should be given a sop for the present, and some assurance for the future.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer need worry very much about the Opposition behind him. It is quite clear that although he has been taking away from the Road Fund a sum of money which had been allocated definitely by Statutory declarations and by solemn promises in this House, to the extent of £26,000,000 in the course of two years, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) and his Friends are very grateful for the very smallest sixpence that the Chancellor will give them in order to buy off his "acquisition." The proposal which the Chancellor has put forward is I think one of the most anti-social and anti-economic proposals submitted to the House of Commons for some time. What is this Road Fund The Road Fund was set up, deliberately, by the House of Commons—and I do not think it was even a controversial matter at the time—for the purpose of dealing with an absolutely new problem which was confronting the country. That was the problem of the new traffic which suddenly burst upon civilisation not merely in this country but in every other country in the world—the new method of propulsion. The roads came to their own again, after having been neglected for a great
many years, and became an essential method of communication between man and man and town and town, and in the carriage of goods between one place and another. It was a proposal that was put forward in connection with a very controversial Finance Bill, but, in spite of that, my recollection is that it was unanimously accepted by every party in the House. Taxation was imposed upon one special set of taxpayers, who contributed, in addition to the other taxes, a special tax, with the assurance that the money would be utilised for the purpose of improving the roads which they used. Since then, there has been an enormous growth in that particular traffic, which shows that we foresaw what was happening, and that we were dealing, in anticipation, with a real social need.
I will give one or two figures, because it is only by means of figures that you can illustrate the proposition which I am putting forward and realise the magnitude of the mischief which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perpetrating. In 1909 there were 8,000 commercial vehicles on the road. In 1926, there were 355,000. That is a gigantic figure in the whole business of the, country. Between Gloucester and Bristol, in June, 1913, 1,891 tons per week were carried along the road. In August, 1926, there were 28,267 tons per week conveyed along the same road. I could give a great many other instances. In the present year we have licensed motors, of one kind or another, for one in every 26 of the population. In the United States of America there is one in six. I do not know if we shall over reach that state of affluence, or perfection, or congestion in transit, but it is perfectly clear that we have attained nothing like what is possible in this country. You are doubling, as Lord Montagu said in a statement the other day—and I think it is quite in accordance with the figure—in about four or five rears the number of motors on the road. There is more in it than that. You are not merely doubling the number of motors. You are trebling or quadrupling the weight carried on the roads, which means wearing them very badly.
I watch every week very closely the figures of railway traffic in this country.
I think they are most significant as indicating what is going on in the business, trade and industry of this country. Compare year by year the quantity of goods carried. I am very glad to see that there is an improvement even in comparison with 1925. That is very gratifying, and it has gone on for years. But if you take the number of passengers, it is going down steadily year by year. That is very largely due to the fact that you have a complete change in the methods of transport. I know that railway companies say, "it is very unfair that we should pay rates, and that those rates should contribute to the maintenance of roads for the purpose of giving facilities to our rivals." That would be so if the Chancellor and his predecessors had not very fairly imposed very heavy taxation upon commercial and private vehicles. In 1921, the commercial vehicles of this country contributed £4,000,000 a year in taxation; in 1926, they contributed £7,600,000. They are going up at the rate of about £500,000 to £800,000 a year. So that they are also contributing towards the maintenance of the roads. The same thing applies to private motor cars.
Here you have an absolutely new problem with which to deal. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with one branch of it, and although I have complete sympathy with what he says, it is only a very small portion of the problem. I will not say it is not a very important one, because it is very important, but it is only part of the whole problem. I quite agree with him that you have, first of all, to deal with the grievance of the ratepayer, and it is a very serious one. I am in entire agreement with him when he says that there is this difference between a payer of Income Tax and a payer of rates. The ratepayer has to pay whether he is making a profit or not. The Income Tax payer only pays upon his profit. That is a very serious thing, especially in some parts of the country, and that is why rates are really inflicting a more serious damage upon the industries of the country than taxation, although taxation is higher. There are a great many industries in the North of England where the rates make the difference not merely between making a profit and a deficiency, but of being able to carry on at all. There are places
where rates are so high that they cannot carry on, and if anyone will watch what is going on at the present moment, the movement of industries from the North to the South, he will discover that one of the reasons—there are other reasons, undoubtedly—is that they are moving from places where rates are almost prohibitive, having reached 15s., 20s. and even 27s. in the £ to areas where the rates are very much lower. It shows that the rates, for the first time, have become almost a determining factor in the industry of the country.
When you come to the agricultural industry, which, at the present moment, is in a state bordering on insolvency, it is a very serious matter, I agree, and their special grievance is that the money goes towards maintaining roads they do not use, that they are almost compelled to spend money upon the main roads which pass through their particular areas. The result is that they are neglecting the roads which they use themselves for the benefit of roads which are really maintained for traffic which makes not the slightest contribution to the general wealth of the little community in which they live. There is no doubt that the old rural roads are very much neglected, because the community cannot bear the expense of even the moderate repairs they used to effect in the old days of the 2s. 6d. rate or less. Therefore, there is a very serious grievance for the ratepayer there, the grievance, first of all, that he is maintaining roads which he very rarely uses, and has to neglect the roads which he has to use for his own business.
There is more than that. There is the question of the development of the road system to meet a new demand. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, quoting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that you have the best roads in the whole world, which is a suggestion that you are really spending too much on roads. I remember presiding over an international conference on roads held here at which there were representatives from every country in Europe, and I was very delighted to find that, whereas France at one time was regarded as the first in the world for its national roads, we had now taken her place. There is no doubt at all that we have now the best
roads in the world, apart from the fact that they twist and twine around, which is a very good thing, because the traffic, instead of rattling along at 50 or 60 miles an hour, is occasionally forced to slow down. At any rate, the roads are better, but that does not meet the problem at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very busy with his Super-tax payers and other questions, and, therefore, probably has not time to master the intricacies of this problem. But consider what the county councils think. The county councils in the main are composed of the right hon. Gentleman's present supporters, so that he may depend upon it they are not approaching this question from the point of view of persons who are anxious to do damage to the Government, or to take political advantage of any mistake they make. They are very alarmed about this, and they say, even about the main roads, which are the best in the world, that, approximately, 38 per cent. of these main roads require reconstruction in order to fit them for motor traffic. Of those, 25 per cent. require widening and diverting at a very great cost.
Another thing they point out is that there are a great many bridges upon the main roads of this country which are utterly unsuited for motor traffic. Somebody the other day was rejoicing in that fact, because he had a house in the country not very far from a town, and the crowds could not get anywhere near him, because a bridge three or four miles away was so bad that no charabanc could use it, and he was saved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the intrusions of "the madding crowd." And there are a great many districts in the country where the great motor lorries, which have been increasingly used to the advantage of the community, cannot use the bridges. I received a letter from a great engineering firm in Manchester. They wanted to send a boiler, or something of that sort, to a colliery district in North Wales. They discovered that even on a main road a bridge was not strong enough to enable a motor lorry to cross. According to the County Councils' Association, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of bridges of that kind here and there across the country.
These things must be put right in order to make the main roads fit for
motor traffic. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has simply in his mind the ordinary motorist. Of course, the ordinary motorist can cross any of these bridges, but, when you come to the business community who have to send goods across country, you will find that the traffic is blocked at the present moment because of the deficiency of the road system Everyone knows perfectly well that there are great advantages in the new development. They were pointed out very well, I think, by the County Councils' Association. The advantages of the transport system of motor traffic are that you save, for instance, the double handling which is involved when you have to send anything by rail. First of all, the goods must be put on a truck, and then on a motor lorry, but in the system of motor traffic we have to-day you save that and also a great amount of time, so that in transit, and generally, there is a great saving to the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think this very amusing, but I can tell him it is a matter concerning the business community—not merely the farmers who are alarmed, but the business community—and if he goes through the towns of this country he will see the enormous burden that is placed on the business community. The London County Council stated that it was equivalent to a loss of £200,000 a day, this block in the traffic. That in a year of 300 days would be a loss of £6,000,000 to the community. It more than doubles the burden of the rates.
It is really a very serious matter for the business community. I agree that, if you are looking at the roads of this country from the point of view merely of the pleasures of the motorist, they are the best in the whole world, but you have to consider men who are earning their living on farms or by industry to which these roads are essential for communication between one place and another for the purposes of their business. Take Germany, which is a very much poorer country than ours. In spite of that, they are, in Germany, constructing about 9,000 miles of important roads, because they find it essential for the conduct of their business. In New York, they have just completed a system for traffic which has cost them £132,000,000. I do not know whether there, is greater congestion in New York than in London, but they are spending that amount of money on improving transport communication, so that
they may the better be able to conduct their business. The conditions are very bad in all our great cities. You are spending a considerable amount on classified roads, but you are only spending a mere pittance on the unclassified roads. If you spend this £500,000, it is a quite inadequate sum for equipping those roads for the new traffic.
When you come to the development which is necessary throughout the whole country in order to improve the condition of the new traffic, it is something which is a pittance, and yet here is a sum of money raised specifically for that purpose, and raised for that purpose with the consent of the taxpayer. I am not going to lay down the proposition that we can only tax a person with his consent, but when you impose a tax and say to the taxpayer, "You are paying your Super-tax and Income Tax, and they are very high, but we are going to ask you to make a greater contribution for the upkeep of roads in the country and it is for a specific purpose," motorists say, "Very well, we accept that tax for that purpose." That is the consideration which ought to weigh with the Government. The Chancellor has given a very plausible answer in the House. He says, "I am short of a very considerable sum of money," and I think he is entitled to say, "How do you propose to meet that?" Well, I say quite frankly that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to choose between the Sinking Fund of £60,000,000 and depriving and restricting the essential development of the resources of the country, I would not hesitate for one moment. I might give him the answer that he could economise here and economise there, but I would have no hesitation in saying that the best Sinking Fund in this respect for the country would be the development that would remove the burden on industry which had been created by this new traffic and for dealing with which this Fund was set up.
Take agriculture. What is one of the greatest difficulties of agriculture? It is the enormous gap there is between the price which the farmer gets for his goods and what somebody else gets when they are sold in the market. When you can bridge that gap£you cannot do it completely—but if you could narrow it, it would make an enormous difference to the
position of those producing the food of this country. This is a question of marketing, and marketing is largely a question of transport. Therefore, when you come to the question of transport, it seems to me that for the development of the roads of this country it is not sufficient to say that we have the best roads in the world from the point of view of the pleasure of the motorist. But for the farmer in trying to get his goods from his farm to the market there is nothing like concerted action to facilitate his doing so. It is, therefore, essential from the point of view of the farmer, not that you should give half a million to reduce his rate, because I do not think it will reduce his rate, because it will be lost in the increased burden east on the rate; it is a question of using the money for the purposes of enabling him to get his stuff to the market more cheaply, more effectively without the intervention of the middleman. Of course, the retailer must get his profit, but there is a good deal between the farmer and the retailer, and I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the wrong road, if I may use the phrase in this discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "The wrong turning!"] He has taken the wrong turning, and he is doing something which inflicts real damage on the business community, real damage upon the farming community, and he has arrested the development of road transport at a stage where we were starting to be in front.
He has thrown us back, and he stopped it just at the point when we were beginning to develop into something that would help the business community. Just at that stage he is taking away in the course of two years, £26,000,000 from the Road Fund. The hon. Member for Thirsk (Sir E. Turton) made a statement in the House to the effect—I have not his exact words before me—but I think he said that so far from there being a surplus in the Road Fund, there was a deficit at the present moment in the sum available. So that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken this £12,000,000 not out of a surplus, but out of a deficit. He ought to allow this money to accumulate, and so encourage the Transport Ministry to carry on this necessary development. The Minister of Transport, I must say, has been very easily discouraged. These new
developments have been demanded by the community in this country, and yet they are slowed down and they are stopped, and the county councils and others who know how essential it is that these developments should go on, are protesting against this money being taken out of the Road Fund. Therefore, I hope the House of Commons will protest emphatically against taking this money away.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has in a former speech of his described the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the best tax collector since Robin Hood. I think that description may be somewhat acrid, but I suggest that perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go down to history as the "Gentleman of the Road Fund." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs criticised the Chancellor for taking money from the Road Fund. I do not agree with him on this particular point, and I am going, if I may, to come to the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to his great surprise I am sure. I do not think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his speech really hit the point which has prompted the Chancellor to take this money, which is the exceptional condition of the country this year. There is a Spanish proverb which runs, "When it rains we all get wet," and I think that is a very appropriate saying on this particular point. There is really no reason why you should spend the money of the Road Fund entirely on roads when every industry in the country is in a bad condition, and after the disasters of last year I think we should put the whole programme with regard to the roads back for a little bit until the roads should be apportioned to their proper sphere in the life of the country.
I want to make this suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure he appreciates what tremendous importance rests upon the system of taxing motor vehicles, because the motor industry which we have in this country—the light car industry—was developed owing to a very curious system of taxation and it was because of that system that we have to-day such a large industry
and that we are to-day such a big exporter of light cars. Consequently, the arrangement of the taxation on motor cars is of very great importance to the industry of this country, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this suggestion very serious consideration. It is that motors should be taxed in two ways. First of all, we must start with a fund to which every motorist contributes in proportion to the damage he does to the roads, and that fund once collected should be inviolable from the point of view of succeeding Chancellors. Over and above that they should pay a luxury tax, and a tax on motors, which are a luxury, is quite legitimate as a source of revenue to the Imperial Exchequer. But behind this there has always been the other system by which the taxation should be paid into a continuous Road Fund. In that way I feel certain that we could get a continuity of policy with regard to road construction which we very sadly want, uninterrupted by Chancellors looking from one year to the other with greedy eyes on the Road Fund. Therefore, my suggestion comes to this, to have two taxes, one purely for the roads on the basis of the damage done, and another on a luxury basis which will come to the Chancellor direct, and if that system be adopted, I think a lot of the trouble we have every year with regard to the roads will be got over.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of us are rather tired of discussing what form of taxation is best adopted in the interests of the community, but this Road Fund was originally established For the purpose of enabling Great Britain to become once again what it used to be, the most important industrial country in Europe. Some of us regret that more has not been said with regard to the claims of London in this respect. It does not seem to be a very important question, because, after all, London seems only to be a village. Most of its members are dumb. We are not discussing, as far as I am personally concerned, the construction of an arterial road that takes you to "Southend-on-the-Mud" for a week, nor of a road that leads you to some part of the North of England. What I am talking about is the road that leads to the Empire, namely, the road to the London Docks. The party opposite are great
champions of the Empire, and they are always waving the Union Jack, hut we have in London to-day docks that are being made equal to any docks in the world, and nothing has been done to construct a road to those docks. In the last 14 years over £20,000,000 has been spent to make the docks of London equal to any other clocks in the world. That work has been accomplished under the auspices of the Port of London Authority. During the whole of that period the roads to the docks have remained practically in a most chaotic condition. We have swing bridges and level crossings all over the place, and however much we may improve the docks themselves, we are still in a state of congestion in getting to and from them. The docks lead to the outgates of Empire. I suggest that all the promises that have been made to provide suitable roads to the docks have been broken.
We have been told just now that there was really no surplus at all in the Road Fund, but a deficit. We are living upon our losses, as all great capitalists do. But we want to know what has become of our share of the Road Fund. It must be considered that the large towns are paying a great share of this tax while the rural areas pay a comparatively small proportion. I am not blaming them, because a poor man cannot pay as much as a rich man, although the rich men, judging by yesterday's discussion, try to pay as little as possible. We in West Ham are paying comparatively more than our fair share in this particular case, and what do we get? Simply deferred promises and unredeemed pledges. The gentleman from the Prudential always tells us to wait until we are dead, and then we shall get what we expected. We have a grievance in this case. If you are going to tax a commodity, the people who make that commodity are consulted. Now the tax on roads was originally intended for certain purposes. I do not want to call the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer any fancy name, because sufficient names have been applied to him. We know how honest he is when he is asleep. We cannot trust him when he is awake. We are not blaming him, because we know it is not himself who is
to blame, but that it is a case of "His master's voice."
You can call out my father, sister or brother,
But, for God's sake, don't touch me!
That was the song we used to sing during the War, but it has also, I think, become the slogan in peace time, when anybody wants relief from taxation towards the national expenditure in a great time of expenditure. My hon. Friend opposite talked about the great difficulties of the nation. He did not mention the General Strike. That might have been an oversight. I expected this to be trotted out once again, because no matter what Minister or Tory Member of Parliament Ends himself in difficulties, he trots out the General Strike. The General Strike has nothing to do with the Road Fund.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman said he was surprised that the General Strike has not been mentioned. He himself mentions it for the first time, but he states quite rightly that it has nothing to do with the Road Fund.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry, Sir, but I congratulate the hon. Member on not dragging in the General Strike by the nape of the neck. My own experience in my own district is that we shall have to have practically a revolution in our road transport system if we are to have effective communication with the London docks, and yet what do we find? At a time when our statesmen ought to show real statesmanship, they are looking round to see where they can pinch a sixpence. It reminds me of the man who looked for a three penny bit and found sixpence, and thought he had a great deal of money. It is all very well to talk of economy, but we do not want economy at the expense of the productive and commercial side of our life. Our country was the pioneer in road transport, and now we are dropping behind in the development of transport. We had a fund established for the purpose of developing our road transport, but instead of using our imagination and statesmanship to make this country the greatest country in the world, which it could be now in the matter of motor transport with its enormous possibilities and its great wealth, what are we doing? Instead of tackling these financial problems from the point of view of statemanship and imagination, we are talking like village
shopkeepers. I represent a constituency which is hard hit by the delays of the Government. We were promised a new road to the docks which have been carried out. Schemes have been adopted, but so far the goods are not delivered. We cannot get the necessary improvement in West Ham and the surrounding districts because it is too poor to undertake any considerable capital expenditure. We have got a lot of sympathy from the Ministry of Transport, but sympathy does not butter any parsnips.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is not doing justice to the Ministry of Transport. The scheme of the Victoria Dock Road is actively in hand and negotiations are proceeding.

Mr. JONES: I am not finding fault with the Minister of Transport or his Department. Since he has been in charge of it, he has always been kind and courteous to us. We know the schemes are there, and it is all very well to say that everything is lovely in the garden, but the money is not forthcoming

Colonel ASHLEY: The contribution of the Government is available.

Mr. JONES: That is right, and an extra contribution must be made by the local authorities surrounding, one of which has been scarified in the Press for giving relief to the poor of the neighbourhood. All these places are poverty-stricken areas owing to circumstances ever which they no control.

The CHAIRMAN: I must direct the hon. Member's attention to the statement already made by the Minister of Transport that the money available from the Government for the purposes to which he is referring would still be available whether the money is from the Road Fund or not.

Mr. JONES: I accept the Minister's explanation, and I thank him for it, but we have had so many statements made as to what will happen in the future. When will the scheme be started? An Act of Parliament will be required and a Bill will have to be passed through the House before we can have it.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss this on a general Amendment.

An HON. MEMBER: That is a local matter.

Mr. JONES: It is not a local matter. It is a matter of great national importance and of great Imperial importance.

The CHAIRMAN: It is a question of a special grant. This is a general, national discussion, and the hon. Member introduces a special matter.

Mr. JONES: I thank you very much, Mr. Hope. I have said what I want to say in that connection, and I am very pleased to have the Minister's intimation of their intention. I would say to you, Sir, that this is not a national or local question; it is an international one. It affects every part of the British Empire and all the countries with which we trade. Members who every year receive invitations from the Port of London Authority to visit the docks of London from Tilbury up to London Bridge know as well as I do that it is not a matter affecting merely East or West Ham, Poplar, Greenwich or Woolwich, but that it affects our whole Imperial trade and the countries with which we trade. I am not talking about an arterial road, I am speaking about an Imperial road, a road in which Cæsar would have gloried if he had had the honour of building it.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) had been here, I have no doubt he would have talked of Northumbria and of the road which is likely to be made to Hull.

Mr. JONES: I thank you for the correction, Sir. After all, Northumbria and all those other small kingdoms counted for nothing compared with this. Therefore, I am appealing to the imperial minds of the Feat statesmen opposite to help us to realise an imperial idea—a road to the Empire, down through West Ham, Poplar and all the other places.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: After the exceedingly interesting interlude to which the Committee has just listened, I think we can go back to the Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who spoke a short time ago from the bench in front of me and who has just
left the House, made an interesting suggestion in regard to a twofold method of taxation, but he confused one very important idea in regard to the question of the kind of roads he had in his mind. This was a matter which the hon. Memmer for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) put in the forefront of his speech, namely, the great development of new arterial roads. It is perfectly true that at present we have to call a halt in that form of construction, because we must cut our coat according to our cloth. We are all agreed that that is the policy of the Government at the present moment, not to enter on any new commitments on that scale. An important and outstanding feature, however, still remains in regard to the maintenance of the roads at present in use, particularly second-class and unclassified roads in the rural areas. I do not wish to repeat arguments which have been brought forward on so many different occasions. We shall shortly, in this country, have to face the very big question of the full relationship of local and central taxation.
If there be one thing which has developed more rapidly than any other and which will have to be dealt with by the nation as a whole it is the question of road transportation. That is becoming not a local but a national question. We are not engaged, as the hon. Member for Silvertown said, in bringing back our roads to what they once were, but in developing them into something which they never have been. That means losing entirely the local aspect. Every road in the country that can take a motor car upon it becomes a national road, because the moment you begin to improve it, you attract a form of traffic, in ever-growing quantities, which does an ever-increasing amount of damage. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, put that point very ably before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We on this side of the Committee have a very special right to plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this particular matter.
One fact, admitted by everyone, is the very critical condition in which the agricultural industry finds itself to-day. It is on those engaged in that industry that the greatest burden falls in the maintenance of the second-class and unclassified roads in our large and slenderly populated country districts. Therefore,
I wish to add my voice to those of other Members this afternoon in regard to the question of giving us a little more generous treatment in this matter. It is not solely on the actual merits of how the Road Fund should be handled—I do not wish to enter into that question to-day—but from the point of view of the very genuine right which the interests which we represent have to this further consideration. If from a political point of view—and, after all, we are engaged here in political activities—we cannot assist the agricultural industry along the lines on which so many of us are looking for assistance to-day, we ought to think twice before closing up those channels along which we can legitimately assist them in bearing the very heavy burdens which fall on them at present. Perhaps the greatest of all those burdens is that of the roads, and that is particularly the case in areas which are less able to carry the heaviest burdens, but where such a burden has to be borne. I do not wish to weary the Committee with repetition, but I would, with all the energy of which I am capable, urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport that, even at this late hour, they should see whether they cannot go this very small way, so far as the number of thousands of pounds is concerned, in giving additional assistance to an industry that deserves it.

Mr. BROMLEY: I want to speak in support of the Amendment, and to put forward a view which has not been enlarged on very much, either in the House or in the Committee. It may be right, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer protests, that some of the great arterial roads of the country have had some attention, too largely, I am afraid, for pleasure rather than for general utility. I wish to point out to the Government the position of some of the lesser main roads, on which I think this Fund could very usefully be spent, not only in improving the position of the roads and in facilitating rural traffic and even through traffic, but in adding to the extent of the surface of the land cultivable in this country. This fund, as has been said so frequently, both last year and during this discussion, was contributed for a certain purpose. Agreed that very large sums had been used for the purpose for which the fund was contributed;
but to take away funds specially contributed, in order to ease taxation in another direction, when anything of a utilitarian nature might be done with the roads of the country, is bad finance and unwise national policy so far as feeding the small towns and rural areas is concerned.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the meandering of many of our second-class, unclassified roads, roads which were built in the days when the builders were all drawn from agriculture. Those roads went about the country in such a way that they took up more space than the actual road bed necessitated, and rural vehicles or through traffic occupied a great deal more time in getting from point to point than should be necessary in an age when time is said to be money and, possibly, when time is more valuable than it ever has been before in our history. Again, there is the danger involved in the faster traffic, which now passes along these smaller roads, which wind and twist and take up space, with their dangerous corners, and which are quite unsuitable for the traffic of to-day. Funds, contributed for the purposes of improving roads, not only arterial roads, have been taken to facilitate, I am afraid, the escape from taxation of some other moneys which should have contributed to the national Exchequer. I can visualise a time when some authority in the country will see the necessity for straightening out and classifying some of those other roads, apart from the main roads. They will straighten them out and make it possible to see further along them and, while they improve the roadways, they will also assist other industries, because there are many places where a low bridge or a light steel girder taken over a small gulley or a little hole in some pasture land or cultivated area would make a road which would take as much traffic as would for many years come along the other road. That would clear the old road, facilitate fast traffic, and cut off corners and generally link up the roads. Such work would give facilities for similar traffic in the rural areas round the towns, such as are only dreamed of by the people now using those roads. This reflects on many municipal bodies, which have to find the cash for road improvements round their
towns, that these many millions of pounds contributed for a specific purpose have been raided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ease other contributions to the national funds. Having suggested these one or two things with regard to straightening the roads, making them more safe and bringing the land they now cover into more use, so far as the country roads are concerned, I support the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Sir HARRY HOPE: We are engaged in discussing a problem of prime national importance, and there is no subject which engages more attention in our country districts than that of the Road Fund. That interest is caused very largely because people are suffering under the enormous burden of road taxation, which has increased tremendously in recent years. Yet, with all that burden from which we are suffering, we see that the great improvements which are being effected to our roads are only being done to the main through roads. We have a network of country roads which are so necessary to our rural population. We do know that the industry of agriculture is suffering at the present time from very severe depression and therefore, if any fresh burden is put on it, I think it is only right and wise that this House ought very carefully to scrutinise such a burden. It has been said that the alternative to raiding this Road Fund would be to put an extra 4d. in the £ on our Income Tax, but, as has been said here this afternoon, we know that Income Tax is only paid by people who have got incomes, but that road rates are paid for by everybody, whether they have incomes or no incomes. Would it not have been fairer that this burden should rather have been put upon those who can bear it than that it should be an additional burden placed on our agricultural districts at the present time of severe depression? I know that our versatile Chancellor of the Exchequer has been passing through a very abnormal time and that the money had to be found, and perhaps some of the disagreement which may exist on this side of the House as to the ways in which he has taken money may show that hon. Members recognise the great difficulties through which he has been, but what we say is that that portion of the community, the agricultural section, which is less able to bear the
burden is having this burden put upon it and we as country representatives are bound to make an emphatic protest against it.
I think there are one or two points which we must insist upon if this Clause goes through. First of all we want to be assured that any further income which is derived from these motor duties on traffic shall be kept exclusively for road repairs and maintenance. Then, again, we want the Transport Ministry, if it is to be kept in existence, to take greater care that this money is spent in a wise way, because we are very critical of some of the ways in which it has been spent in the past. We have seen this money, which is contributed by motor taxes in order to repair the damage inflicted by motor traffic, spent very largely on making or adding to what are called "joy roads." Not only have these large boulevard roads been made on the outskirts of our cities, but money has also been spent on grandiose schemes like the Mersey Tunnel and the new Edinburgh-Glasgow Road, and that money is to be spent on Waterloo Bridge, and we say that this money should be spent on our country districts in order to repair the damage done by motor traffic. I think it would be only just that this should be done. I have no doubt that road traffic will, in the future, increase enormously, as it has done in the past, and that the cost of our road maintenance will go on increasing year by year. I only hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he or his representative winds up this Debate tonight, will say something in the way, as it were, of an apology for taking this money which ought not to be taken. In making this change I hope he will give an assurance to the country, an assurance which the country desires and almost expects, that no repetition of this sort of thing will take place and that the money raised by these motor duties will be wisely and carefully used in the maintenance and repair of our country roads.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I think we shall all of us agree that when these motor taxes were put on they were put on with the object of obtaining revenue to be used for the maintenance and improvement of the roads, but I do not consider that the motor user has a right to consider himself the person who
should dictate the way in which the money raised under these taxes is to be spent. When the taxes were put on the country was in a very different state to what it is now, and no one could foresee the way in which these taxes would grow. It is not for the motor-car owner to say how the taxes shall be spent. It is for us to decide in this House. We have to decide what money is to be raised for different purposes, how it is to be raised and how it is to be spent. We have to decide how the expenditure on the upkeep of the roads is to be divided between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. We have also to decide how much is to be spent on the upkeep of the roads. It is generally owned that our roads are probably the best in the world, and I know that huge sums of money are spent on them. I think probably the amount spent on the roads is rather more than we can afford at present. For these reasons, I have no sympathy either with the motor-car owner or with the complaints made by his organisation, but I have a very deep sympathy with the ratepayer. The rates have been going up by leaps and bounds, and one of the causes of the increase is the increased sum which is spent on the upkeep of the roads.
In my own district council the upkeep of the unclassified roads in 1913 cost £6,500. It is now £13,600—I am giving round figures. The county council of Devonshire spent out of revenue in 1913 £111,000. This year they have spent on the roads £322,000, after deducting grants received from the Road Fund. The average cost of the main roads per mile has gone up since 1913, when it was £80, to £363 per mile. That is not for large improvements; it is only for maintenance and for small improvements such as the taking off of small corners. In addition, the county council have had to borrow very large sums for big improvements and big alterations that are being made. The increase in the costs of the roads and the increased rates are borne in part, and as regards unclassified roads very largely, by agriculturists, and although agriculturists may get some indirect benefit from these improvements to the roads they get also an indirect and direct disadvantage. The roads are made up in such a manner now that they are not fit for horses to go on; they are too
slippery. Also, the agriculturist has lost the market for his horses, for his oats and for his hay; due to the fact that horses are being replaced by motor vehicles. Therefore, the agriculturists have paid increased rates which do not bring them increased advantages. We all know the plight of agriculture at the present time. I do not want to enlarge upon that, but the best way to do something to help agriculturists now is by reducing the rates and taxes they have to pay and by making extra grants for the roads we shall have a very good chance of reducing the rates that they have to pay in country districts.
We all welcomed the announcement of the Prime Minister which he made in Cornwall to the effect that an extra £500,000 was to be spent on second-class roads, thereby raising the percentage to 33⅓. That goes some little way towards meeting our demands, but it does not do anything whatever for the unclassified road, and we ask now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall allot a sum of £400,000 or £500,000 to increasing the grant for unclasified roads from 20 per cent. as it was last year, to 33⅓ per cent., the same as the grant for second-class roads. That is our demand for this year, and I think it is a very reasonable demand. We shall expect more next Year. We shall expect to see bigger percentages for the first- and second-class roads than we are getting, and I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think that giving us this grant this year will be sufficient. We shall certainly expect a larger grant from the Road Fund next year for the upkeep of the roads. We recognise the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year, and therefore we are not putting forward the full demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may very likely say, when he comes to reply, that he has not got sufficient money available to give us this small extra grant of £400,000 or £500,000, but he has got a sum of something over £19,000,000 to be expended on the roads this year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not half as clever as I believe him to be if he cannot find, out of that £19,000,000, a way to pinch £500,000 for us. He can get money for himself if he wants it, and I am sure he can find some way in which
he can get something out of those £19,000,000 for the purposes for which we require it. We know that huge sums are being spent on the improvement of the roads, and on making new roads, and we know that in many cases the work is being done in an extravagant manner, and we know that money is being spent on such objects as the planting of trees. Surely, some of that planting could be put off so as to give us part of our £500,000. Also, we know that £1,000,000 has been allotted to the Thames bridges, and it is almost certain that this money will not be spent during this year. If it is not spent during this year, we might have some of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he wanted a sum of £12,000,000 to balance his Budget, but in the Clause which we are now considering, Clause 46 of the Finance Bill, there is no mention of a sum of £12,000,000, but he says now that he proposes to take all that stood to the credit of the Road Fund on 31st March. That sum may have been a very great deal more than £12,000,000, and if the Clause stands as it is now, we may find the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking more than he requires. I understand that the alternative to taking this money from the Road Fund is an increase in the Income Tax of 3d. or 4d. in the £. This is a very serious thing. This year has been an exceptional year, and we must expect exceptional measures In view of the serious consequences that would arise from putting this money on the income Tax instead of drawing on the Road Fund, I feel that I should not be justified in opposing this Clause. I can, however, only support it under certain conditions. If the Chancellor takes this money to aid the taxpayers, he must also treat the ratepayers justly by giving then; the aid for which I have asked. If he will give £500,000 to the unclassified roads, and if he will accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton), to limit the amount to £12,000,000, then I can support the Clause, but if he will not accept these two proposals. I am afraid I shall have to vote for this Amendment.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I think hon. Members must keep a sense of perspective in dealing with this matter, and ask those outside the House who have been raising
clamour from time to time to do the same. One would suppose that the proposal in the Finance Bill would deflect money from road purposes, and that that would be reflected in a corresponding diminution in road work. As a matter or fact, it does nothing of the kind. The fact is that the balance which it is now proposed to abolish has accrued over a term of years under a system which was unsound from the very start. Whenever a new capital scheme was approved under the old grant-in-aid system, it was the practice to put aside out of the yearly revenue some appropriate sum towards the ultimate cost of completing the scheme. Practice has shown that, in fact, the road revenue is well able to meet the annually accruing charges without any reserve of this kind being built up at all. All that is proposed, as I understand it, is that these annual accruing charges, coming into charge as and when these schemes are completed, or by way of instalments upon the schemes, will be met by the Exchequer in future out of the annual road revenue or the sums derived from road taxation. The progress of the schemes already sanctioned will not be retarded, nor will the sanctioning of new schemes necessarily be diminished. The proposed abolition of this reserve will not inflict the slightest possible hardship either upon road users who contribute to the fund, or any of the local authorities whose case is being so strenuously pressed to-day. These questions of additional grants in aid of rural roads and of allocating particular sums from the Road Fund to particular purposes, bear no relation whatever to the present proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one cannot too strongly urge on the organised interests outside that they are beating the air when they complain about this alleged deflection of the Road Fund, because no deflection is taking place.
I suggested a Moment ago that we should try to keep a sense of perspective on this Road Fund question, because it is implied that the rural roads, although admittedly presenting a case for consideration, have a claim which is more urgent than the claim the urban areas can advance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) indicated just now that the high rates levied in the urban or borough areas are a great handicap to industry.
That is perfectly true. The great producing industries are just as much handicapped by the high rates in the boroughs as agriculture is handicapped by rates in the rural districts, in fact, more handicapped, because in no rural area are the rates anything like so high as they are in a borough.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The road rate?

Sir J. NALL: The hon. Gentleman forgets that agricultural land is specially treated and receives special assistance from national funds. When the Roads Act was going through this House, with Sir Eric Geddes as the Minister in charge, I remember pointing out an anomaly in the Bill which was unfortunately enacted and is now the law. That anomaly particularly hits the big industrial towns in the north. In the city of Manchester every first-class road and some of the second-class roads have tramways along them, and the area occupied by the tramway, which has to be maintained out of the tramway fund, is deducted from the area which ranks for grant from the Road Fund. In the great cities where tramway systems operate in no case does a first-class road get the whole of the grant which ought to be paid to it and would be paid to it if no tramway existed. Owing to the operation of the Roads Act the onus of the maintenance of that first-class road falls on the urban population either in the form of rates if there is a deficit on the tramway and it is a municipal undertaking or in the form of increased fares if the undertaking is able to impose fares sufficiently high. To that extent urban populations are penalised, and have a case which in its way is just as strong as this rural case which has been so ably pressed in the House.
Some hon. Members might say, "Scrap the trams," but what would be the result of that policy? An omnibus with a capacity comparable to that of a tramway car pays about £108 a year in licence duty. The contribution which a tramway makes to the maintenance of the roads in the manner I have described varies from £200 per car per annum to as much as £400, and in some cases £500. If we scrap the tramways we shall throw on to the Road Fund and the local authorities responsible for the roads where formerly the tramway existed an expenditure
equal to £200 or £400 a year, as the case may be, for every tramcar displaced in the locality. I have raised this point to indicate that there are anomalies in urban districts just as there are in rural districts with respect to the allocation of the Road Fund, and that it would be an unsound policy if the Government were to say they will permanently increase the grant in aid of roads to a certain percentage, or make some fresh and permanent allocation of these grants-in-aid, unless they take into consideration the whole of the circumstances which arise not only in the rural but in the urban districts. In London maintenance charges fall particularly heavily on the London County Council, and while the Chancellor is perfectly justified in the action he is taking in this Bill, and whilst it has no relation to the case which is being pressed on behalf of the rural districts, I do urge on him that in reviewing the future allocation of Road Fund revenue he should review also the claims of the boroughs and urban districts, not prejudicing the position by some premature decision in favour of one interest to the exclusion of the others.
I hope the Minister of Transport will realise that the question of rural read maintenance and repair has been considerably aggravated by the long delay in publishing Regulations governing the construction, size and weight of motor vehicles. For too long the announcement we have heard this afternoon has been delayed. As a result of the delay a great many of the difficulties now being experienced by rural road authorities have arisen. A great many of the complaints of high rates and under-maintenance are directly due to that delay, and if there is one argument which is stronger than another for absorbing the activities of the Ministry of Transport into another Department it is the fact that the question of safety on the roads, of motor law and its application, ought to be concentrated in one office, which, apparently, ought to be the Home Office.

Mr. BATEY: I want to take the opportunity of voicing the complaint of the Durham County Council against the action of the Chancellor in raiding the Road Fund. At the beginning of this
year, the county council passed a resolution saying:
The whole of the limas collected by the motor tax should be used for the purpose of road improvement and maintenance.
We are with the county council in that sentiment. We believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is altogether wrong in making any attack upon the Road Fund. We believe that, instead of the Chancellor taking this money, the money should have been used for the upkeep and maintenance of the roads. The Durham County Council, in my opinion, are justified in making this complaint, because we find that in 1919 the gross expenditure on the main roads in the County of Durham was £69,184, while in 1926 it had risen to £424,671. That was an enormous increase, and the county council only obtained from the Ministry of Transpors for the year 1926, £154,415. That left the county council to raise a very largely increased sum of money, as compared with the year 1919, for the maintenance of the roads, and the county council, having, to raise that much greater amount for the upkeep of the roads, are, in my opinion, justified in passing their resolution protesting against the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking any money whatever from the Road Fund.
Not only have the county council a complaint on this store, but the rural district councils in the, County of Durham are also suffering, and are entitled to complain. In the Auckland Rural District Council, in 1919, the highway rate levy was only 9½ d., but in 1926 it had increased to 1s. 10d. In the case of the Chester-le-Street Rural District Council, the highway rate levy in 1919 was 8d., and in 1926 it had increased to 3s. 6d. The Durham Rural District Council, in 1919, had a highway rate levy of 6d. which in 1926 had increased to 5s. 2¾d. The Easington Rural District Council's highway rate levy, which in 1919 was 8½d., had increased to 3s. 0½d. in 1926, while, in the Houghton-le-Spring Rural District it was 1s. 1d. in 1919, and 4s. in 1926. In face of these huge increases, we think we are entitled to protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer Making this raid on the Road Fund. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the fact that these heavy increases of rates are bearing very hardly on a county like ours in the North of
England, because the County of Durham is a mining county, and is just now suffering very severely. Heavy local rates are one of the things that make it impossible for collieries to carry on, I noticed that last month at the annual meeting of one of the large concerns in the County of Durham, the chairman said that, while that company, in 1914, was paying £29,000 a year in local rates, on the 31st March, 1927, it was paying £118,000 a year. With this heavy burden upon collieries at the present, time, we are not surprised at so many collieries ceasing to work.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to take this money from the Road Fund, but, if he does so, and the local authorities have to increase their rates, it simply means that the Government, somehow or other, will have to find other money for the purpose of relieving districts that are hit so hardly as our districts are at the present time. The Government cannot afford to sit still and see counties like ours with huge numbers of collieries standing idle, and with thousands of men unemployed. The Government must be prepared to do something, and this is one of the ways—although I do not think that even this way will meet the situation fully—in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have eased the burden in such districts, and, instead of seizing the Road Fund, he might have allowed the whole of the money obtained from the licences to go towards the upkeep and maintenance of the roads. I am hoping that the Committee will be bold enough, that there will be sufficient dissatisfaction in the Committee to make them, when the Division takes place to-night, record an emphatic protest that will prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from continuing his raids upon so important a fund as the Road Fund.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I am afraid I cannot support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) as to there being no special reason for assistance in the case of rural roads as compared with roads in towns. My hon. Friend is much more experienced in connection with Parliamentary Committees than I am, but I have sat under his chairmanship, and I know that the one thing that we have to see to is that a tramway under-taking,
or whatever other undertaking it may be, is self-supporting. Surely, the tramways do not get assistance either from the rates or from the Road Fund, because they are only allowed on condition that they are self-supporting; and, therefore, I cannot see any analogy at all between that part of the difficulties of towns and those of the rural districts think no one can deny the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use any surplus of the Road Fund, but I think that he himself must admit that the Road Fund was started, and is now in being primarily, for the needs of the roads, and I deny his right, until the needs of the roads are satisfied, to take that money away for any other purpose. How have the needs of the roads been met? I am concerned, I must confess, with the needs of rural roads. I was told the other day by the Minister of Transport, in answer to a question as to how many miles of unclassified roads still did not get any grant at all, that there were 86,000 miles of roads in that category in this country.

Colonel ASHLEY: I must point out that a very large proportion of that mileage which is not classified or scheduled consists of grass tracks, or stretches of road on which in any case practically no money is spent in maintenance.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I know, but "a very large proportion" is a very misleading way of putting it. Let me quote from a few Yorkshire rural district councils, which have nothing to do with my constituency, to show how many miles of unclassified roads they have for which they do not get any grant at all. The parish of Bridlington has 109 miles, for which it receives no grant at all. The parish of Driffield has 138½ miles for which it gets no grant at all; the parish of Howden has 131 miles for which it gets no grant at all, and so forth. The result is that the rates in those parishes have gone up, in some cases from 1s. 8d. to 6s. 8d., and in others from 1s. 4½d. to 10s. 4½d. It cannot, therefore, be said that the needs of the rural roads are by any means met, and the people who live in those localities can no longer afford the necessary rates. As another instance of the manner in which rural districts are affected, I may mention that I happen to be on the Committee which is at present considering
the Croydon Bill, and Croydon like a good many other big towns, wants to take in a little rural area outside Croydon. A penny rate in Croydon yields £5,000, but a penny rate in this little outside district of Addington yields only £45. Can it be wondered at that people in Addington are grumbling at the rates on their roads, when this will mean an increase of more shillings to them than it does pence to the bigger borough of Croydon?
I do not think that any more need be said about that aspect of the matter. Everyone recognises its existence, though they may not recognise the seriousness of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has already pointed out what very high rates have to be paid in respect of the roads in country areas. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would guarantee that the proposals which not only the Unionist Committee of this House, but also the Rural District Councils Association put before him, that the modest request for this year and what the Rural District Councils Association want for next year would be acceded to, then one would have no difficulty, in these hard times, in supporting his proposal. If he feels anxious as to where he is going to get the money from, I would submit to him that, if he will look into the extravagant way in which some of the grants in respect of the big roads are administered, he will find plenty of money for the small temporary needs of the rural district. Last year I asked the Minister of Transport how much he was going to give to the Middlesex County Council for planting trees, and he said it came to £175,000 a mile. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I beg pardon; I have got the answer here. The estimate was £175 a mile for planting trees along 24 miles of arterial roads. There are many ways of finding the small amount of money that is asked for by the rural district councils for this year's grant, by stopping extravagance and taking money which is not going to be spent next year, so that the Chancellor would still be free to take his £12,000,000, or whatever he wants for other purposes.
In conclusion, I would point out the great unfairness that is brought about
by the way in which these big roads are treated. The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Sir T. Davies) on the 22nd June, which has already been quoted, shows that something like £11,000,000 has been granted for 35,000 miles of road, as compared with £2,500,000 for all the 110,000 or 120,000 miles of unclassified roads in this country. That works out at something like £330, or more, per mile for the first-class roads, while the unclassified roads get less than £20 per mile. That great difference imposes on country and rural districts a very heavy handicap, and I do urge the Government to remember that, if they want cottages built, if they want agriculture helped, if they want business to go on in the country, if they want to get our people back from the towns to the countryside, the chief thing is to reduce the rates, and the best way in which that can be done is by helping to reduce the rates in respect of the roads in our country districts.

Mr. TAYLOR: I have considerable sympathy with hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. They are very anxious indeed to promote the maximum degree of economy in connection with our administration, but they all want economy at somebody else's expense. This is the sort of Debate that makes one almost despair of Parliament as an institution for adequately representing public opinion. There is no doubt whatever, from the speeches that have been made on this subject of the raid on the Road Fund in various parts of the House, that if the matter were left to a free and unfettered vote it would be defeated by a very considerable majority. Almost every Member who represents a rural constituency has complained, rightly I think, of the gross unfairness of the present contributions which residents in those communities are called upon to pay towards the maintenance of roads, and the position, so far as urban areas are concerned, is equally serious. It was stated on a previous occasion, by an hon. Member who speaks with great authority on this matter, that the highway rates in rural areas, taking the country as a whole, had increased from something like 6d. before the War to 6s. in the £ to-day, and that represents a very serious burden upon those communities.
With regard to urban areas, perhaps in some ways the burden is even more disastrous in its results. Unfortunately, we have had unemployment concentrated in many of our industrial areas where great staple industries have been established, and in those urban communities the cost of road making, owing to the growth of motor traffic, has increased enormously. The unclassified roads and the streets of our urban districts are used by motor traffic to an increasing degree, but the Government obtain the whole of the revenue from the receipts of taxation, and most local authorities are facing with a good deal of trepidation the very difficult situation they are in in regard to the enormous increase in local rates, mainly with regard to unclassified roads, for which they receive no grant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been compelled to engage in a series of buccaneering expeditions, of which the raid on the Road Fund last year and this year is only one, because he has taken the step of reducing direct taxation to a point below what is justified by the conditions of the country, and if Income Tax and Super-tax payers are to be given the advantage of making a contribution of £42,000,000 a year less to our national revenue the Chancellor is compelled to find the money somewhere.
It seems to me this method of securing temporary revenue is particularly atrocious in the present circumstances. When the Labour party was in office they were harassed from day to day by Members of the party opposite. They were subjected to a great deal of criticism because they were told they were making no contribution whatever to the solution of unemployment. With regard to the position of the party opposite, I should like to stress this side of the problem for their consideration. We have spent something between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 since the Armistice in un-remunerative relief to alleviate the position of those who have been unemployed. This question of road reconstruction, the building of new roads and the erection of new bridges is an area of activity in which the Government is making an immediate and very considerable contribution towards the solution of the problem of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in a previous Debate placed before the House
this very significant fact, that 50 per cent. of the money spent on the building of bridges and road maintenance and road construction went directly in the form of wages to British workmen, and some 25 per cent. of the materials used in the construction of those roads and bridges was also made by British workers, so that 75 per cent. of the total amount of money spent on this improvement and construction of new roads went directly in wages and undoubtedly could make an immediate and a considerable contribution towards the solution of the problem of, unemployment. It has also been estimated that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had left the distribution of the Road Fund as it was two or three years ago, if the £25,000,000 or £27,000,000 that he has taken from the fund during the last two years had been left for the purpose for which it was intended, it would have provided work for at least 80,000 men on our roads for a very considerable time. That seems to me to be a side of the problem which the Government have apparently overlooked.
We are continually told that it is the duty of Parliament to do all it can to offer constructive suggestions for alleviating the problem of unemployment. It is sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy for Members opposite, who voted in favour of the Chancellor's action in this matter to pretend that the Government are doing their duty to the unemployed, when you have this kind of thing going on which is directly increasing unemployment, or preventing the absorption of a considerable number of men. There are quite a number of ways in which this money that the Chancellor has secured could have been used with great good to the country and to various local communities. All over the country you have problems arising out of level crossings, which are creating great congestion and delay and involving a considerable amount of waste and expense. You have the question of the difficulties and inconveniences arising out of the number of toll bridges. I understand there are something like 45 or 46 toll bridges on main and secondary roads alone in Great Britain, and the Government are taking no action to remove this prehistoric inconvenience to modern traffic. The Minister of Transport on various occasions has informed us that he is
prepared to deal sympathetically with applications of local authorities in freeing toll bridges, but the majority of these local authorities are not in a position to undertake the very heavy liabilities which would be imposed upon them by the freeing of these bridges, particularly as the freeing of a toll bridge very often brings very small benefit to the particular locality which would have to find such a large portion of the money. Therefore I hope the Committee will assert itself, and that those hon. Members opposite who have spoken so strongly against the Chancellor's action will support the local authorities and for once give us an exhibition of a really free and independent spirit and refuse to march into the Lobby at the dictation of the Party Whips. If it was left to a decision of the Committee without the pressure of the political machine, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would be rejected.

Colonel GRETTON: Many of us find the greatest difficulty in accepting this Budget, as I said on its introduction, but this is not the time nor the occasion to discuss the whole policy of finance. We are dealing now entirely with the Road Fund. The hon. Member who has just sat down talked about finding employment for the unemployed. It is a very large item that is constantly being put down in the accounts of the Road Board, and many schemes which to us have seemed extravagant and unnecessary at this period have been justified only on the ground that they are finding employment in time of stress for those who would otherwise be out of work. All the work on the roads which we are all advocating, is going to find employment. What we are now advocating, I believe with the entire sympathy of hon. Members opposite, is that more should be done by the Road Fund to maintain the roads we have and that less money should be spent on extravagant schemes for the creation of new roads. The Road Fund is constantly increasing by the process of more vehicles paying increased taxation, and that growth of traffic entails constantly increased cost in the maintenance of roads. One of the causes of complaint in country districts is that the grants made for second-class and other roads are often combined with conditions
which, in fact, impose upon country districts an additional rate in order to obtain grants. I had a case the other day before the Minister of Transport of the kind of thing that goes on. The corporation of a town desired to widen part of a road leading into the town. It cannot be anticipated that any great volume of heavy traffic will go down the road, because it is a steep gradient and there is an alternative route for heavy traffic, but it was a reasonable and proper proposal, as the town is extending in that direction. The estimated cost of what the corporation desired was about £17,000. They went to the Road Board, who said, "We will not agree at all to your scheme of widening this part of the road only. You must widen the whole road down to the residential part of the town, already built upon, and incur the cost." The result of that action of the Road Board was that the estimated cost was raised to £37,000 £38,000, and possibly a good deal more for the compensation which would have to be paid.
6.0 p.m.
That is the kind of condition, in face of local experience and knowledge of local requirements, which is so often imposed on the action of the Road Board. These grants should not be combined with onerous conditions which are not necessary and are against local experience, and they should be made for the maintenance of the surface and the foundation of the roads. This question is a very urgent and very vital question to country districts. County districts, many of them, are in a very straitened and impoverished condition. The rates are constantly increasing. I hope the Road Board will not impose new burdens, but will allocate much larger sums to country roads on to which motor traffic is often diverted and cut them all to pieces during alterations to other roads. I hope they will give a generous grant. I hope that the county councils will be able to pay such sums, granted from the Road Fund, as are really needed for the maintenance of roads without conditions imposing increased expenditure upon country districts.

Mr. HASLAM: The question of policy which we are discussing this afternoon is, as I understand it, "Should we or should we not slow up in the development of our
roads? "I will not enter upon technicalities as to whether the transference of this sum from the Road Fund into the Treasury is going to reduce our expenditure or whether it is not. If I understand the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright it is, that he agrees to the honouring of the commitments of that fund, but, on the other hand, he considers that in the state in which the country now is we should call a halt in the general development of roads which would otherwise have taken place.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, no. Limiting the rate of increase.

Mr. HASLAM: Limiting the rate of increase. I will accept the Chancellor's word on that, but I am one of those who think that this is not a sound policy. I think that in regard to agricultural districts it would be far better policy to go ahead and endeavour really to do something to provide better transport for the agricultural industry. The slowing up and the limiting of the rate of increase this year will undoubtedly mean that the rates will not be kept down. So far, the necessities of the rural roads are so great that the rural district councils in my part of the world, and probably in most parts, are faced with considerable increases of expenditure. The increase of grant which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing this year will not go sufficiently far even to stop that increase.
We have heard a great deal about the rural rates this afternoon in comparison with urban rates, and I should like to point out that many Members seem to be under a certain amount of misapprehension in regard to the relief which rural rates are already getting. It is very frequently stated that in regard to the ordinary rates, the Government come to the assistance of the ratepayers in the case of agricultural holdings to the extent of 75 per cent. I would like to point out that that is not quite exact; it is indeed far from being exact. It is quite true that under the Rating Relief Act, 1896, the Government undertook to pay half of the rural rates but that was based on the position which existed at that time. The rates have very much increased since then and the contribution remains the same. It now amounts, not to 50 per cent. but to something very much less indeed. The total rural rates
at this moment are something like £14,000,000 and the total Government assistance is somewhere between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, which is very far, indeed, from being 75 per cent. If that is the case I should like to argue that surely you cannot have a better way of carrying out a policy which was agreed upon by all parties, the policy of 1896, when it was generally agreed that the rural rates were inequitable and unjust, because after all the land is the raw material of the farmer. Would it not be well to endeavour to make some further efforts to reduce the rates which are so heavy with regard to the highways?
In my district the highways rate will increase this year by quite a considerable amount. We have heard that in the old days rates were 6d. and 1s. and that kind of thing. I would like to give some of the figures for the last few years relating to Horncastle District Council, the district which I represent: in 1924–25, £12,728; in 1925–26, £14,373 and in 1926–27, £15,881. That shows a progressive increase, and other rural district councils show similar increases. There is a progressive increase all the way through. The assistance—and I am far from denying that the Government have given considerable assistance—is hardly sufficient to meet the growing demands. Therefore, I should like to associate myself with the protest that has come from these benches with regard to the policy of the Government in reference to the rural roads.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: I want to take some exception, in the first place, to the remarks that fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall) in his reference to the effect of the rates in urban areas compared with the rates in rural areas. I submit to this Committee, very definitely, that the charge in rural areas for the purpose of the maintenance of roads is far greater than in the urban areas. Practically, the whole object of the Amendments moved from this side of the Committee were definitely in the interest of the industry of agriculture. What we require is that the rates on agricultural land should be reduced by means of a grant from the Road Fund. I am perfectly certain that Members on all sides of the Committee, above the Gangway and below the Gangway opposite, as well as those on this side, recognise
the very unfortunate position that agriculture is in at the present time. We are one and all seeking for some remedy for the disease which has overcome it. I want to suggest that one practical remedy for the industry of agriculture is to attempt to decrease the cost of production, and that one practical method of decreasing the cost of production is by the relieving of rates upon agricultural land. I further suggest that a practical method of relieving those rates is to obtain further grants from the Road Fund towards the maintenance of the roads. I want to express my gratitude, as an agriculturist, to the Minister of Transport for the grants he has recently made to the local authorities for the maintenance of roads, and I want to suggest to him that agriculturists—and by agriculturists I do not merely mean the farmers, I include the landlords and the labourers equally—are justified in asking for further assistance.
Let us compare for a moment the roads of to-day with the roads of 50 years ago. Fifty years ago our roads were merely metalled with loose granite and the farm carts and the farm waggons had to roll in the granite. At that time almost the sole user of the roads was the agriculturist himself, and it was only equitable and just that he should bear the cost of the roads. Compare that with the position to-day, where the chief user, and in some cases to the extent of 90 per cent., is the motorist. The agriculturist sees that by means of reinforced concrete and tar macadam and so on these roads are being repaired at very great cost. He knows perfectly well that 90 per cent. of the users of the roads are motorists and realises that it is almost unsafe for him to use the roads. I suggest to the Committee that the farmer has some justification for asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Transport to see to it that the motor owner who does the damage to the roads, and in respect of which these great costs are incurred, should pay for the damage he does. The motor owner would be justified in replying: "I do pay, at the present time, for the damage I do to the roads." He does pay, but the difficulty is that we in the rural areas are not getting the money, or at least we are not getting sufficient of the money so paid.
I know it is not usual to give a personal example, but I am in a rural area surrounded by rural roads. I have three cars, and I have to pay taxes upon those three cars, but the roads I go on are in no way metalled with tar macadam. They are made of loose granite, and I have to roll down that granite with my motor cars. I am paying heavy rates to the highway authority for the maintenance of the roads, and I am also paying heavy taxation on the cars, and at the same time I have to do the work myself. I do respectfully suggest to the Committee that I have some cause for complaint. I recognise, and I think every other agriculturist recognises, that, although we are in this unfortunate position and although we are all seeking a remedy, at the present time the Chancellor of the Exchequer is placed in a very difficult position, and we accept the fact that it was essential for the purposes of the financial position that he should raid the Road Fund to the extent of £12,000,000. Accepting that, we make this appeal to the Minister of Transport and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the agriculturists to treat them sympathetically in the future and not to repeat again this raid on the Road Fund. I hope the raid will not increase above the £12,000,000, and that they will consider the rural and agricultural interests by giving further sympathetic grants. I do make that appeal on behalf of agriculture.

Mr. PALING: The last speaker, and the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to repeat the raid and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Not again." He gives a promise with great facility. He would promise anything in order to get his Budget through. I remember, two years ago, when this matter was first mooted, and he got into trouble with his Budget, there were volumes of protest from all over the country and it looked as if a first-class crisis was going to arise in the Tory party when he raided the Road Fund; but he had only to come to this House and make a speech and state that if he had not taken the money from the Road Fund there would have been an increase in the Income Tax, and the protests ceased and the Budget went through. He has come again this year, and raided the
Fund, again there are volumes of protest, and we have had loud protests from the agriculturists, but the hon. Members opposite who have protested will go into the Lobby in support of the right hon. Gentleman. When they make a protest the Chancellor of the Exchequer has only to indicate that he will not do it again, but probably next year he will be in as big a financial crisis as he is this year—we shall always be in financial crises so long as he is Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he will say that the state of the country warrants him in taking the money from the Road Fund, and the Tory party will fall in again if he hints that if he does not take the money from the Road Fund he will have to increase the Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not care twopence for their protests. He knows that he can always bring them to heel, whatever their protests may be.
There is a real question of unemployment connected with this raid of the Road Fund. As a Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, I know that there are miles upon miles of roads that need remaking and widening, toll bridges which require to be altered and put on a free basis, and bridges that require to be widened. Within nine or ten miles of Doncaster, on one of the main highways to one of our ports, the lorries have to unload on one side of a bridge, take the freight across and load it again on the other side. That has been going on for years, and one of the reasons why the necessary improvement has been held up is because of the lack of money, and it is likely to be held up for years while we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer of the character of the one now holding the office, who takes money for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was contributed. In my own Division, a few weeks ago, we had a case of the widening of a bottle-neck, a very dangerous place, where there have been many accidents. For nearly four years the negotiations have been going on with a view to arrang- a compromise as to how much shall be paid by the Government. The Ministry of Transport almost wants to get out of paying anything. We had an inspector down a few months ago and he frankly admitted that because the Road Fund had been raided, the possibility of getting this scheme through had been put
back probably for months and years. That is the kind of thing that is going on all over the country.
The Minister of Transport knows that he has had to turn down dozens and hundreds of schemes up and down the country, dozens from the West Hiding, the carrying out of which would have helped to solve the question of unemployment. He knows that he cannot approve the schemes, because the money is not there, and he knows that he has had volumes of protest not only from the West Riding County Council but from nearly every local authority in the West Riding.

Colonel ASHLEY: How can the so-called raid affect this work?

Mr. PALING: I should imagine that it is harder to get the work done when there is no money available than when funds are available. I agree that the agriculturists are in a very serious position, and that the question of rates and roads presses very hardly upon them. They have voiced their protests this afternoon, which reminds me that a week or two ago I had a document sent to me by the East Riding County Council. I will quote two cases from that document. The Howden rural authority, with a population of 13,000, has 22 miles of second-class roads, 73 miles earning special grants, and 131 miles earning no grant at all. The highway expenditure in 1913 amounted to £5,700, and in 1926–27 to £15,802. The total rates in the £ for highway expenditure are 8s. 0½d. The second case is that of the Skirlaugh rural authority with a population of 7,000, 28 miles of second-class roads, 69 miles earning special grant, and 84 miles earning no grant at all; total mileage, 181; highway expenditure in 1913, £6,000; and in 1926 £21,000; with a rate of 10s. 4½d. for highway expenditure.
One frankly admits that when rural districts are faced with these alarming increases, something has to be done. I ask hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural districts, what are they going to do about it? A crisis is arising in agriculture. They cannot get money from the Road Fund because it has been taken for other purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the first instance, gave away £42,000,000 to the Income Tax and Super-tax payers. He then found himself in a difficulty, and he had to pinch money from the Road Fund to make it
up. Then as a result of pinching money from the Road Fund, the rates in agricultural areas go up, and now those districts are appealing against it and there is a crisis in the agricultural industry. The next thing we shall find will be a demand from the agriculturists that in order to meet the situation the wages of agricultural labourers should come down and their hours of labour should go up. When we get into crises of this description in agriculture, mining or any other industry, that seems to be the only way to solve the problem.
This raid will not only affect the rates, but ultimately the wages of the agricultural labourers. That is the condition into which the country has been brought by this precious Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton that he would not raid the Fund again; but we know that when another big crisis comes, he will do the same thing, and he will threaten his Tory opponents with an alternative increase in the Income Tax, and once again they will go into the Lobby in his support.

Mr. DHEWE: Coming as I do from a purely rural area, I feel it is my duty to reinforce what has been said by rural Members, and to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport how very seriously this matter is looked upon in our country districts. We are grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has been able to do for us in the past, and we are also grateful for the pledge of the Prime Minister when he visited Cornwall that he is going to give us an extra £500,000. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) has been abusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and saying that agriculture is passing through a crisis. What he did not tell us was that when the Socialist. Government were in power they never did anything towards helping agricultural rates out of the Road Fund or in any other way. Under this Government it is the first time that agriculture has been given anything in the way of relief towards rates by maintenance grants from the Road Fund.
There is another side to the picture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government must be perfectly well aware
that the agricultural industry is in a very desperate position, and it is for that reason that we in agricultural constituencies take this opportunity of urging the Government to try to give us some more relief. The Government have said over and over again that they are sympathetic towards agriculture and would do whatever it is within the power of any Government to do to help the industry, and I maintain that this is an opportunity which is within the power of the Government to give us some relief more than we have enjoyed hitherto. In our farming we are in competition with every country in the world, and if we are to compete we must have no heavier burdens to bear than our competitors overseas. I agree with what has been said that national economy is of the very greatest importance at the present time. We are not asking for any new form of taxation to be raised, and to be devoted to a subsidy for agriculture or anything of that sort. We have been told that even after the £12,000,000 have been taken out of the Road Fund there is still a larger sum to be distributed than there ever has been before. All we are asking is that in rural areas we should get a fair proportion of that increased sum.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders), in moving his Amendment, outlined the scale that we propose as representing agricultural constituencies in this party and what we think is a fair and just scale. We do not think that it is unreasonable to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to arrange the Road Fund finance so that we get a fair increased share of the increased grant which we understand is to be distributed from the Fund. I am quite certain that last Year when the Government gave a grant for the maintenance of our rural roads, and that was the first grant the any Government has given purely towards maintenance, they did it with the intention that it would in some way help to reduce our rural rates, Unfortunately, the cost of upkeep has gone on increasing, and although the £1,250,000 grant which we got last year purely for road maintenance has been very gratefully accepted, it has not done anything in itself to reduce the rates, because the general burden of expenditure has gone on increasing. Some of the rural district councils in my constituency are
particularly agitated over this matter, and one of them, Okehampton District Council which had a rate for road maintenance before the War of 1s. 6d. has now a rate of 4s. in the £. They have decided to stabilise at that figure, although that does not do full justice to the roads. They feel that they would have to go very much higher to do full justice to the roads, but they say that they will stabilise at that amount. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of our rural communities and of agriculture, which everybody must realise is an important industry, to see whether he cannot, even at this late hour, do something to help us still further in our rural areas.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been here all this afternoon. It would have been an education to him to have seen how in every quarter of the Committee, Members of every shade of opinion have denounced this proposal for the raiding of the Road Fund. I say that because last year he stated that public opinion was not merely resigned to the acceptance of these proposals, but that it was gratified and relieved that the proposals had been so moderate, and he added that he had no further designs upon the Road Fund. With this assurance, it was easy to buy off the opposition of hon. Members behind him. They were only too delighted to have an excuse for dropping the rather unpleasant bone of protest in order to catch the shadow of assurance which the right hon. Gentleman held out to them. An hon. Member opposite has said that no work is being held up. He was repeating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said; that no work started by the Ministry of Transport has been held up. That is a statement which must be definitely challenged. I have here the Report of the Ministry of Transport for the year 1924–5, and I see that among the works which were then commenced was the road from Perth to Inverness right through to the North of Scotland to Wick and John o' Groats. That road has been definitely held up on account of the raid on the Road Fund.
The work which has been started is of a most uneconomical kind, because in the county of Sutherland on an isolated stretch of about 10 miles of road £25,000 has been spent. No expenditure could be
more uneconomical than that. If the road is completed it will be worth while, because it will open up the country, but to do an isolated stretch of 10 miles at a cost of £25,000 and then stop—nothing could be more uneconomical. I, therefore, press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let us know definitely whether this road, which was included in the Schedule of the work for the year 1924–25 is to be completed or not? Then there was the great West Road through the Western Highlands, which was to open up one of the most beautiful areas in the whole of the country for tourist traffic. This would have found employment for large numbers of people in Scotland, and, incidentally, the construction of the road would have found direct employment for 8,000 men for a year. Is that to be proceeded with?

Colonel ASHLEY: Tenders have gone out for the first section.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I want to know if that road is going to be completed. The answer of the Minister of Transport may satisfy hon. Members behind him, but it will not satisfy me. Will that road be carried to completion? The head of a great insurance company told me that if the work which was put on foot by the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), by the first administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) and the administration of the Socialist party in 1924 had been carried out, it would have provided employment for 64,000 men in Scotland for a year. I want to know whether this schedule of work is going to be completed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) who moved the Amendment, told us that there is no need for much more new construction. In the Highlands of Scotland we are far behind the standard which rural England has reached. There is a great need for the reconstruction of the roads. You started there after you had got into your stride in England, and there is a great need for more reconstruction in Scotland in order to bring the standard of Scottish roads up to the standard of English roads. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we have the best roads in the world. As an isolated statement of fact that is perhaps perfectly true, but the last
census shows that this country is by far the most densely populated country in the world and, although we have not as many motor cars per head of the population as the United States, we have more motor cars per linear mile and, therefore, there is a much greater strain on the roads in this country than anywhere else in the world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that the State contribution has kept pace with the development of motor traffic. As a matter of fact, it has only just kept pace with the actual increase in the number of motor cars, and these motor cars are increasing in size, power and pace, and are more destructive to the roads. It is necessary, therefore, to go in for more expensive methods of construction. Consequently, the State contribution ought to increase at a much more rapid rate than the increase in the number of motor cars.
Nor does this argument allow for the fact that the increase in motor cars is proceeding more rapidly now than it has at any time in recent years, and instead of raiding the Road Fund there is a clear case for a larger expenditure in order to meet the growing destructive power of motor traffic. I agree with what has been said that one of the most important aspects of this question is that the burden of rates in the Highlands of Scotland, as in many parts of England, is now crushing the life out of the countryside. Many hon. Members realise that one of the greatest tasks of statesmanship is to rebuild the countryside of Britain, and nothing is making this harder to do than this crushing burden of the rates. Take the County of Sutherland, into which has been thrown a whole mass of motor cars upon roads which are not yet fitted to bear the burden of this traffic. A penny rate in Sutherlandshire only brings you in £400, and a county like that cannot possibly bear the burden of dealing with this great problem unless you go on and improve the roads right up through the northern counties. The right hon. Member for Wells referred to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a gigantic act of acquisition, and he said that they were offered a sop of £400,000. That is a precious small sop when it is divided among all the rural districts of
the country, and it is a belated sop, because it is one which was promised us years ago by the Minister of Transport. I do not suggest that the Minister of Transport actually promised us £400,000, but he promised to increase the help to the unclassified roads. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as if this was one of the fruits of his policy, said, "I have raided the Road Fund," and the implication was: "I am able by doing so to give this largely increased sum to the rural roads." As a matter of fact, the very reverse is the case.
This is merely honouring a pledge given by the Minister of Transport on a very small scale, and if it had not been for the raid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a more substantial sum than £400,000 would have been given to the relief of these roads. Many of the unclassified roads do not earn the grant. If a road stops at a dead-end, although it may go through two or three flourishing villages and serve important little districts, with six or seven different communities, it is not qualified to come in for a grant under the present Regulations of the Minister of Transport. There are many of the important unclassified roads which will not earn this increased grant, this small increase from 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent, which hon. Members opposite are demanding. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) said he expected more next year, and another hon. Member opposite said that unless they got this £400,000 he would vote against the proposal. We shall watch with interest to see what action they are prepared to take. We have had a long series of speeches from hon. Members opposite and I have no doubt they will look as well in the local newspaper as they have sounded here. But more is necessary. Those who led the rebellion yesterday were a more determined lot of men than those who are leading the rebellion to-day. I warn those who have spoken so eloquently to-day that the effect of their speeches will be largely discounted if, in the event of an unfavourable reply being given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to their moderate and meagre demands, they fail to support their speeches by going into the lobby in support of the Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Committee will probably feel, in spite of the very spirited speech to which we have just listened, that the subject which has been engaging our attention this afternoon is, to a large extent, exhausted. The Debate has followed the usual course on this occasion. We have had the usual condemnation of extravagance, and the usual demands for expenditure. We have had the usual appeals for this or that part of the country, and the usual condemnation of sops of all kinds, except when they happen to go to the neighbourhood of particular places which are fortunate enough to find a spokesman in this House. I am not able to offer to the Committee any but the main and general reasons to justify the course which the Government have taken. We had a speech earlier in the afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who presented himself to us in the guise of the unsleeping guardian of hen-roosts, and who delivered a general disquisition upon the importance of roadways. We are at one. There is no doubt whatever that very great and increasing sums should continue to be spent on the development of British roads. I welcome from the right hon. Gentleman, and also from the hon. Member who has just spoken, the admission that our roads are at the present time the best in the world. I am not quite sure that every part of our social and economic arrangements would win such a high place in an international competition. But the roads of Britain are, by general admission, the best in the world, and more is being spent on the development of those roads in proportion to their mileage than is being spent by any country in the world, or, at any rate, in the old world.
When we are asked to say whether the amount which is being spent on roads is sufficient or not, the question cannot be decided actually. It can only be decided in relation to the other requirements of the community. The Government, from their central point of view, are bound to weigh one form of economic activity against another; bound to measure one class of need—urgent, clamant need—against another. It is the duty of the central administration to consider whether it would be wise, for instance, to carry out the full ambitions of the
road enthusiasts and to spend, as we are told, hundreds of millions of pounds in a very short time on our roads, even if to do that we had to raid our Sinking Fund or reduce our armaments below a proper margin of safety, or cripple our education, or hamper our social services. All these questions and issues must be balanced one against the other, and a proper sense of proportion must prevail. We have also to consider the great developments which are taking place in road transport in their repercussions on railway traffic. There is no doubt whatever that the railways, with their £1,200,000,000 of capital and 600,000 employés, are suffering acutely from some forms of the competition of the motor vehicle. I believe, myself, that it should be possible harmoniously to adjust the relative claims of these two forms of transport. Certainly it would be most foolish for us by lending undue emphasis to the one, to inflict untimely and unnecessary curtailment on the other. When, many years ago, we had a fine canal system in this country and railways were introduced, railway development was conducted in such a manner as virtually to destroy, to atrophy, the canal system: whereas it might well have been that the canal system could have played a larger part in the transport system of this country than it does, in fact, play at the present time. All these matters, as I say, must be judged in due proportion and in proper relation from the central point of view. Leaving that general observation, I come to one of a very direct and particular significance, namely, our financial difficulties. We are passing through a time of exceptional financial difficulty.

Mr. J. JONES: And will as long as you are there.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very sorry I did not hear what I am sure was the very excellent speech delivered by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), who, I am told, fired the Committee with the liveliest feelings, but I am sure that he would not attach such overweening importance to my personal contribution to our affairs, as to attribute to me all the misfortunes from which we have suffered in the last few years.

Mr. JONES: No, but you are carrying the baby.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope I may be allowed to have the baby's bottle, too. At any rate, the fact is that our finance of the last three years has been violently deranged by the coal troubles. Never mind whose fault it was. That is not relevant to any argument I am now unfolding. Our entire finance has been deranged, first, by the subsidy, secondly, by the dispute, and, thirdly, by the aftermath—the consequences—of that dispute, and my object has been this year to try to tide over the extraordinarily difficult period of the aftermath of the great labour and industrial troubles of last year, without either having to make an increase of direct taxation or doing anything to increase the cost of vital necessaries to the mass of the people. That is the whole policy which I have endeavoured to pursue, and every shift and expedient to which I have resorted, and legitimately resorted, every device which I have presented to Parliament, has only had that object of enabling us to tide over this period of extreme difficulty. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has been waiting so hungrily all the afternoon for the opportunity of following me will say, "You would have had no trouble; you would have been forced to devise no expedients, if you had merely kept on, or, having taken off, had re-imposed 6d. on the Income Tax." It is quite true that 6d. on the Income Tax, producing over £30,000,000, would have placed me beyond the need of proposing any of these luxury taxes such as betting or making these inroads, which I regret on general grounds, into the Road Fund.
We see the difficulties of the course we have adopted, but do not let it be supposed that the imposition of an additional 6d. upon the Income Tax would be received by the general mass of taxpayers in this country with feelings other than those of the utmost pain and depression. I think to put the standard rate of Income Tax up from 4s. to 4s. 6d., eight years after the War would he a serious step in view of the immense and utterly disproportionate additions which were made during the War period to our direct taxation. To take a backward turn in regard to the standard rate of
Income Tax would strike a blow at the confidence and enterprise of the country of the most serious character. Evil as are the circumstances in which we find ourselves, numerous as are the criticisms which are levelled at the Government, bitten and clawed as their representative is from every side in collecting revenue, I am quite certain the course we have adopted, unfavourable though it may appear, is upon the whole a far easier one than if, economising industry and invention, I had simply resorted to the crude method of marking up the standard rate of the Income Tax.
There is another reason why it would not have been justifiable this year to increase the standard rate. That would be a recurrent imposition. It is a tax which does not reach maturity in the first year, and the reimposition of 6d. would only reach maturity in the second year, and in the second year I should not need it. If we can get through this difficult period, the general revenues of the country give every reason to believe that they will balance expenditure next year. I may possibly have a few more suggestions to make when the time comes to adjust any minor adverse differences which may emerge. There are no grounds, on a general view of the balance of revenue and expenditure, which justify this reimposition and the task which lies before us, and which this Road Fund "acquisition" —I think that was the word my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) used—so happily and conveniently discharges—that particular task is essentially one of bridging the gap.

Mr. JONES: Not bridging the road.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Bridging the gap and making a road across the gap, along which the general body of our fellow-countrymen may move forward into an easier and happier year. I have said so much on the general proportion of our road expenditure and so much upon the difficulties of our financial position. There are several Amendments on the Paper which it has been agreed we should discuss on the first Amendment and afterwards dispose of in the shortest possible time. There is the Amendment of the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury costing £9,000,000. There is the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Carnarvon Boroughs costing £6,000,000, and there is the Amendment of my right hon. Friend opposite costing £12,000,000. I must ask the Committee to reject all those Amendments, but the Amendment to which particularly I would draw the attention of the Committee is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and its cognate proposal. As far as I can make out, he has borrowed these proposals from some proposals which have been most carefully considered and discussed by the Members on our side of the House who take a particular interest in agriculture. He has, as it is called, "lifted" the entire proposal in its most extreme form and, placing in on the Order Paper, has endeavoured to appropriate whatever support and popularity may be derived therefrom.
7.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman of all men has done this. He has come forward as the champion of the rural authorities Why, Sir, it is only little more than a year ago when the right hon. Gentleman indulged in one of the most disagreeable diatribes—and believe me, he can make his diatribes very disagreeable when he tries—against the agricultural community that I have ever listened to in the House of Commons. He argued that the Income Tax concession which they have long enjoyed should be taken away or greatly diminished, and he spoke of them, generally, with that sour disfavour which characterises his attitude to that great body of our fellow-countrymen. Mocking his opponents and reproaching them, he described the agriculturists and farmers of this country as the pampered darlings of the Tory party. I believe that is a phrase which has travelled far, and certainly some of my friends have not felt under any obligation to impede its progress. What we are witnessing to-day is the right hon. Gentleman making a desperate effort to retrieve his reputation as the farmer's friend. He wants to make quite sure that, instead of being the pampered darlings of the Tory party, they are his own pampered darlings. I do not believe that these manœuvres will deceive anyone out of this House or in it, and I am quite sure that their crudeness will excite pity and even a certain sentiment of disgust.
But leaving the motives which have animated the right hon. Gentleman and coming to the merits of the Amendment, I can only say its unwisdom is fully in harmony with the motives which have inspired it. This particular Amendment costs £5,500,000; the other Amendment which he has put down would cost £12,000,000. That, of course, would completely destroy the balance of the Budget, and there would be no possibility of our meeting our financial arrangements this year. Passing from that to the roads themselves, what an unthrifty and profuse—I almost said profligate—policy it would be to take £5,500,000 from the surplus and throw it down upon the rural roads without any provision for continuing it in future years. The revenues of the Road Fund in the ordinary course would not suffice to sustain expenditure at that level. To take this money from the reserve fund would no doubt make a splash for the first year, and a great many schemes would be started and hopes excited, but then there would be no continuing revenues to carry the process forward, with the result that waste of the most pitiful character would occur.
I am quite sure that some of this £5,500,000 which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to spend in order to retrieve his character with the agricultural community—and I think it will take all that to do it—could be much better devoted to reducing our National Debt through the medium of the new sinking fund, and thus maintaining the general credit of the country. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is characterised by another extremely vicious element, namely, the proposal that the grants should in some cases reach a total of 75 per cent, from the National Exchequer, 25 per cent. only being contributed locally. We have already repeatedly examined some of the evil tendencies of the present grant system, and everyone knows, as I have said before in these Debates, that even the 50–50 grant tends to lead to local extravagance and to schemes being pushed forward, not so much because they are necessary or because they are the best, but because, at any rate, pound for pound, they bring additional money into the district. To go and spend £3 of national money to produce the expenditure of £1 of local
money and to encourage local authorities to plan schemes of that kind is to put forward principles which utterly vitiate every conception of sound finance. It only shows that the right hon. Gentleman, who is always ready to pose as the most austere financier and strict economist, scatters those principles to the wind, like most other Socialists, whenever there is a chance, however brief or improbable, of securing votes.
I leave the right hon. Gentleman and his Amendment and I come to the record of His Majesty's Government upon this question of the rural roads, and in dealing with it I must also ask that this matter should be considered in relation to the general effort we have made to sustain agriculture. It is natural that the Government which owes so much of its support to the rural districts, should feel a special responsibility towards the agricultural community, and we have made a very important contribution to the needs of our greatest industry. Let me just read out—and it may surprise the Committee—the expense which is being provided in this year's Budget for the maintenance of the agricultural community—for the question of our road expenditure in the rural districts must be judged in its general relation. There is the beet sugar subsidy, which reaches a total of £4,500,000 this year; there is £400,000 for education in connection with agriculture, £355,000 for research, £96,000 for livestock improvement, £182,000 for animal diseases. £953,000 for smallholdings—

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. When I spoke on this question of the Road Fund, I was not allowed to introduce any extraneous subject, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in introducing agricultural education, which has nothing whatever to do with the Road Fund.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On that point of Order, I think the hon. Member was allowed to go as far back as Julius Cæsar.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The right hon. Gentleman is quite in order in justifying the taking of money from the Road Fund.

Mr. JONES: I only wanted to get it in, that is all.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is £100,000 for drainage, and £106,000 for miscellaneous services—total £6,692,000. To that should be added the new agricultural rates grants which were introduced in 1923 and are now being provided regularly—£3,600,000, making a total of £10,300,000, to which must be added about £700,000 for general expenses, travelling and administration and so forth, or very nearly £11,000,000 in all which is being provided in the Budget of the present year in aid of agriculture in one form or another—that is to say, we are finding in this Budget a continuing expenditure very nearly equal to the total amount being taken from the Road Fund. I do not say this at all to indicate that we regard our task as finished. On the contrary; the existing conditions of agriculture are causing the deepest concern to His Majesty's Government and it shall be, and is, our ceaseless endeavour to find means—not detrimental or unfair to the rest of the country—by which it may be stimulated and encouraged. This Parliament will certainly not close without further effort to find means which will be, I venture to think, helpful to agriculture and far more useful to the agricultural community than flinging this lump sum, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, without any prospect of continuance, upon the rural road authorities.
Let us see what we have done during the present Parliament to assist the development of rural roads and to lighten the burden on the country districts. Year by year we have provided £1,250,000 for the improvement of rural roads. That is a continuing provision to supply which the revenues exist. In 1926 we introduced an entirely new form of assistance as regard the unclassified roads in the shape of the 20 per cent. maintenance grant. This grant was estimated to cost £1,400,000, but when it was found that the whole amount would not be required on the 20 per cent. basis, we made, as hon. Friend has reminded us, a bonus distribution last year of 5 per cent. We have since renewed the same sum of £1,400,000 in the budget of the Ministry of Transport in the present year, but anticipating that more roads will be placed in this category and making some allowance for the growing expenditure. on these roads, we estimated that the £1,400,000 provided would not permit of a larger rate of distribution
than last year's figure of 20 per cent. At the same time we have continued the policy of increasing the mileage of the roads in Classes 1 and 2 wherever such increase is justified by the traffic conditions.
We have recently made a fresh departure in raising the maintenance grant for Class 2 roads from 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent., that is, from one-quarter to one-third, with effect from last April. That is an additional concession which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells asked me to confirm, and which was announced recently by the Prime Minister, and the effect of which is to cost the Road Fund upwards of £500,000 a year. In these ways we have now allocated the whole of the available revenues of the Fund for the year. I certainly had hoped, and it is still my hope, that the increased grant, for the Class 2 roads, although by no means satisfying the demands which have been made—and nothing, I suppose, will ever satisfy them—will nevertheless be accepted by all fair-minded people as the most we are able to do in view of the difficult circumstances of the year. I have, however, been pressed by my hon. Friends to endeavour to make some further provision for the scheduled roads. What is there more that I can do? I cannot derange the structure of the Budget, and I do not think I ought to be asked to do so from any quarter in the House. We are doing our very utmost to come through this difficult period, and I am counting on the £12,000,000 from the road-Fund to balance the general finances of the country, and the Government cannot possibly rest content with a lesser sum. It has, however turned out that the balance of the Road Fund on the 31st March was somewhat in excess of £12,000,000, and with this margin, and taking a somewhat more optimistic view of the Road Fund revenues for the year than I felt justified in taking last April, I think it may be possible to go some way to meet the wishes of my hon. Friends. I shall be glad to accept the Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to the effect that the Exchequer will take no more than the £12,000,000 upon which it is counting, and I propose to spend the additional money which thus becomes available for the further relief of the scheduled roads
by making the distribution even on the greater mileage which we anticipate in the present year a full 25 per cent. instead of the 20 per cent. already announced. That is all I can do at the moment.

Sir BASIL PETO: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what extra sum that would amount to?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot, because it is not possible to estimate exactly what the surplus will be above the total of £12,000,000.

Sir B. PETO: Will it amount to £200,000?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If we were to begin guessing we might easily narrow the field of speculation so that there would be nothing left for the future to disclose. We might find that the revenue of the Fund is greater than we expect or that the disbursements may be less than we are prepared for. If it should turn out that there is a further balance available in this way, I am quite prepared to consider whether some further relief might not be given to the roads in rural areas in one form or another; but it will be impossible to make any statement on that subject until after next January, when we shall know more exactly what the state of the Fund will be. Next year, no doubt, other possibilities will be open, and it is agreed on all sides that in future the emphasis should be laid rather an upkeep than on major works of new construction. We have provided this year for road purposes about £20,000,000, or £2,000,000 more than last year. Next year there should be available for the roads between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 more. I have no intention of touching that.
It is not the intention of the Government in any way to make further inroads upon the yield of the Motor Licence Duties in the lifetime of the present Parliament. That increase, whatever it may be—and it will certainly be considerable—will be devoted continuously to the development, of the roads, rural and urban, according to the best possible scheme. Whatever may be received from these vast revenues, will be used for road purposes, and in particular it will be
used to assist the local authorities in the ever-increasing burdens which lie upon them.
I have done my best to ease the many difficulties with which we are confronted, and, as far as possible, to bring into harmonious relation the special problems of the rural road authorities and the large general consideration of national finance. I trust that the Committee, which has now examined this matter from so many angles and so thoroughly, will be ready to support the Government in taking this sum of money from the Road Fund, which is an essential part of the general finance of the country.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Every one of the supporters of the Government who have taken part in this discussion has denounced the raid which the right hon. Gentleman has made upon the Road Fund. They may have derived from his concluding remarks sufficient satisfaction to justify them going into the Division Lobby in support of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, in the early part of his speech, when he was giving the reasons which in his opinion justified this raid, contributed nothing new to the reasons which he has on many previous occasions placed before the House and Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's reasons fall under three heads. First of all, we have the best roads in the world; we are spending more money on our roads than probably any other country, and therefore that is every justification for him taking this money and which, according to the statement he made in an early part of his speech, is really not needed either for maintenance or for the improvement of roads.
Then he advances the familiar argument that, in considering expenditure on roads, we must have a sense of proportion and that we must not curtail expenditure on other essential public services by spending too much upon the maintenance or improvement of roads. That argument loses all its force when we remember that the Road Fund stands in a special category. The money was raised for one specific purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George), in the course of his speech this afternoon, said that users of the road are specially taxed
for the maintenance of the roads, and that, therefore, places this Road Fund in a special category. The money was contributed for a special purpose, and it is not right to use money which has been contributed for a specific object for some other purpose.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer's third argument was the familiar one that the financial position of the country was such that he really must lay his hands upon this fund. I am not going to enter at any length on his denial of responsibility for the present financial position—we have debated that often enough—but, whatever the financial position of the country may be, it does not justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in taking money which does not belong to him and money which has been contributed, as I say, for a special purpose, and which is still needed for that special purpose The Chancellor of the Exchequer, anticipating what I might say, referred to the alternative of an increase in the Income Tax, and said that, if he had not come upon this Fund, that increase in the Income Tax would become permanent. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken there. He took off 6d, from the Income Tax two years ago, and, if he had imposed 6d. this year in order to meet the consequences of his reckless finance, and if when better times came he found he no longer needed that extra impost on Income Tax, it would have been just as easy for him to take it off as he found it to be easy two years ago.
There is a further point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer advanced. I am not quite sure whether he repeated it in his speech this afternoon, but he has made it many times on former occasions, namely, that the Road Fund was increasing at such a rate that it was quite impossible to absorb it in road improvements and road maintenance. That point has been dealt with by some hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate this afternoon. Instead, however, of money from this Road Fund being spent usefully in the maintenance and improvement of roads, schemes are being held up all over the country because of the refusal of the Ministry of Transport to make the necessary advances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer further said that, notwithstanding his resolute efforts
at spending the money, the coffers of the Road Fund were continually overflowing. I have here a letter which was sent by the Ministry of Transport to the West Riding County Council declining to make any allocation from the fund for the purpose of improving a very dangerous bridge which is in their area. The West Riding County Council repeatedly made application to the Ministry of Transport for some assistance, and this is the letter which was recently received from the Ministry of Transport:
I have to acknowledge receipt of your letters of the 3rd and 8th instant, respectively, enclosing forms together with calculations, specifications"—
and so on—
with an application for financial assistance from the Road Fund and for sanction for the necessary loan.
Now, this is the point of the letter:
I regret, however, to inform you that there are at present no funds available from which such assistance can at present be given, but the scheme will be registered with a large number of others and will be considered if and when funds become available.
That letter was written by the Ministry of Transport just before the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his raid of £12,000,000 upon this Road Fund. Yet the coffers of the Road Fund were overflowing. The funds could not be usefully employed. The public have to be endangered by bridges of this character, because there are no funds available; and this is the only one, according to the Ministry of Transport, of a great many others.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) confessed himself this afternoon to be pretty simple in the matter of arithmetic. He said he could not understand the contention which was urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, notwithstanding the fact that he has taken £26,000,000 from the Road Fund during the last few years, there would be quite as much money available as if not a penny of this money had been taken. I place myself in the same school as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells. It does seem to those of us who have not the financial skill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if you take £26,000,000 from a fund which has been allocated for a specific purpose, there must be that sum at least
less available. And that, of course, is the explanation of the Ministry of Transport sending out letters like the one I have quoted, to the effect that they have no money, and that they cannot sanction the loan, and that the public must continue running the danger to their lives and limbs and traffic because of the financial policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer got quite sarcastic about an Amendment on the Paper which stands in my name and that of my hon Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and claimed that it was put forward by some group or faction of the Tory party. Those groups in the Tory party now seem to be growing like mushrooms on a summer day. I was not aware that any section of the Tory party had been interested in the proposal which appeared on the Order Paper in the form of the Amendment. As a matter of fact, it is a proposal of the County Councils Association. The right hon. Gentleman paid particular attention to only one part of that Amendment, the part which proposes that there shall be a grant of 25 per cent. towards the maintenance of the unclassified country roads. It is quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman did not know anything about my Amendment. Those Who had prepared his speech for him had evidently not been made acquainted with it. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of that part of the Amendment, I was amazed to hear a little later in his speech that he is already making a grant of from 20 to 25 per cent. on the class of roads for which I am asking, in this Amendment a specific and regularised grant of 25 per cent.
An observation which I made in the course of the Debates last year has come as a perfect godsend to the Tory party, and I understand it has been very extensively used and quoted upon the Tory platform. I have not the least objection to that statement being quoted, provided it is quoted correctly. I may say that one Tory Member of Parliament has already had to apologise through the local newspaper for having misrepresented and mis-quoted that statement. I only referred to the farmer, but some Tory Members are saying that I referred to the labourer too. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft)
made that statement in Sussex the other day. He said that I stated that the labourer had always been the pampered darling of the Tory party.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the word "farmer" obviously includes all the parties engaged on the land?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Anybody who heard my statement, or anybody who will read it in connection with the point with which I was dealing—namely, the question of the income Tax—can place no other construction upon it, if they are honest men, than that I meant the landlord interested in agriculture. I do not see, therefore, why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been so sarcastic about that part of the Amendment which proposes that 25 per cent. of the maintenance of unclassified roads should be met from the Road Fund, when he himself a few moments later claimed the credit for himself and for the Ministry of Transport that that was something like the proportion which they were already allocating.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The part I touched upon specially was that dealing with the 75 per cent.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite prepared to justify what I have said about the 75 per cent., 50 per cent., and 25 per cent. I justify the 25 per cent. for unclassified roads on the ground that they are now being used to an ever-increasing extent for motor traffic which does not belong to them. The same thing applies in an increasing degree to the second-class roads for which we are asking 50 per cent. In asking that 25 per cent. of the cost of the unclassified roads should be paid out of national funds, we are not asking for what is more than a reasonable and proportionate contribution from those outside the district who use the roads to an ever-increasing extent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, near the end of his speech, tried to meet the objections which have been brought forward in such profusion this afternoon by members of his own party, by making some ambiguous and very indefinite promises in regard to some additional contribution which they may expect from the Road Fund at the end of this year. What is it going to be? If hon. Members
who have spoken this afternoon, and who have expressed their irritation at the Chancellor's action, are going to be satisfied with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised them, then they can be bought very cheaply. I do not know what this contribution will amount to in the County of Somerset, but I have the figure as to what it will amount to in one of the most important county councils in this country, namely, the West Riding County Council of Yorkshire. They are spending £2,000,000 a year upon their roads.

Sir R. SANDERS: Those roads do not come under the county council ; they come under the district councils.

Mr. SNOWDEN: This is a contribution which will be received, not by the county council, but within the area of the county council.

Sir R. SANDERS: It has nothing to do with the £2,000,000 spent by the county council.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I know it has not. Surely that interjection was unnecessary. I showed what was being spent upon the roads in that district, and what is the contribution which is going to come into the area from this grant; and it would amount to £6,000. I repeat, therefore, that if hon. and right hon. Members' objection to the raiding of the Road Fund is going to be met by the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, then they can be bought very cheaply.
I have touched on most of the points with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt in his speech. He finished by making a promise that he does not intend to raid the Road Fund again. I would advise him not to be too reckless in his intentions and promises. Some of the promises that made shortly after he took office have come home to roost. I doubt if a single one has been fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman is always an optimist. He expects to be in a better financial position next year. I am quite certain of this, that if he is in financial difficulties next year—and it is very likely that he will be not in a very good financial position—if there anything in the Road Fund he will not be deterred by the statements he has made this afternoon from raiding that fund. The right hon. Gentleman has done a good many reprehensible
things during the last few years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells has moderated his language in this Debate. I remember that a year ago he described the Chancellor of the Exchequer's action as being petty larceny. This afternoon it was a gigantic acquisition of funds, or something of that sort. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells concluded his speech by saying that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make some very moderate concessions which he suggested, he would over-look the raiding of the larger sum. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman really knew what he was doing. Does he see what all that involved? Last year he described the raid on the Road Fund as larceny; well, I believe larceny is a criminal offence. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the larceny this year, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells says that if he will give him a sum of something like £400,000 out of this £12,000,000 he is prepared to condone this felony. It is rather a serious thing for the right hon. Gentleman who is a county magistrate to announce that he is prepared to condone a felony of £12,000,000 on condition that his own district can get a paltry half-a-million or so.
As I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done many discreditable and reprehensible things during the last few years, but he has done nothing so bad as his raid upon the Road Fund. Instead of there being less need for spending money on the road, the need to spend more is increasing every year. An hon. Member who spoke earlier in the Debate this afternoon said that, however necessary or desirable it might he to spend more money on the roads, we could not afford to do it at the present time, and he quoted a Spanish saying that when it rains everyone gets wet. He applied that to the fact that we are in financial difficulties at the present time and that therefore everyone must stiffer in consequence. He reminded me of some negro dogerel which would be much more appropriate:
The rain, it raineth every day,
Upon the just and unjust fellow,
But most it rains upon the just,
Because the unjust's got the just's umbrello.
That all through has been the financial policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has been letting the rain
fall, not upon those who deserve to get wet, and this is only one illustration of the general policy that he has adopted during these years. He said last year, and he has said the same thing this year, that it was not unpopular, and that there was no opposiion to it. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells began his speech this afternoon by saying that there was the strongest feeling against this proposal in the constituencies. The County Councils' Association, which is composed to a very large extent of Tories, and among whom are many Members who sit on the other side of the House, unanimously passed a resolution condemning this raid. The largest petition presented to the House of Commons in recent years has been presented against this raid on the Road Fund. But the right hon. Gentleman, of course, has brought his supporters to heel. They will go into the Lobby this afternoon, and they will vote in support of this raid. The right hon. Gentleman's first statement in his speech this afternoon was that this subject had been exhausted. This subject has not been exhausted. When the next General Election comes, this will not be one of the least of the counts in the indictment against the Government, and the party opposite will then learn that not the least of those who have contributed to the disaster which will come upon their policy then will be the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been told that I am ready to condone a felony if I get my price. I think I have got a little more, and, being a man of my word, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I want to say an additional word with regard to the County of Glamorgan. We have had already an opportunity of putting the matter in detail before the Prime Minister and the Treasury, and I simply want to place it on record. In addition to the West Riding of Yorkshire, in Glamorgan we have 34 certified estimates drawn up and the plans have been approved of, and we have a very large number of men in each of these localities. We have, in addition to that, 12 schemes which are urgent, where the
traffic is dangerous, and we have been asking, in all, for a total sum of £700,000 within the last five or six months. This money, we are told to-day, will be held up till January, and our unemployed will have nothing to look forward to. Notwithstanding the statement made that the coffers of the Road Fund have been overflowing in the past, we have been unable to get the money. The result of the holding up of this money by the

Treasury will be that we shall be unable to carry on our work unless at the expense of the ratepayers, and I want to protest, on behalf of the Glamorgan County Council, against this diversion of money from the Road Fund, the fund for which it is intended.

Question put, "That these words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 260.

Division No. 239.]
AYES.
[7. 55p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hlllsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shiels, Dr Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleid)
Spoor, Rt Hon. Benjamin Charles


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas(Dundee)
Strauss, E, A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sutton, J, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, Jonn Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B,


Day, Colonel Harry
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Viant, S, P.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duckworth, John
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Duntermlins)


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. p.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Paling, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Greenall, T,
Rees, Sir Beddos
Wilson, R, J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.



Groves, T.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Strettord)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Albery, Irving James
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bennett, A. J.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Berry, Sir George
Brass, Captain W.


Astor, Viscountess
Bethel, A.
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Atkinson, C.
Betterton, Henry B.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Blundell, F. N.
Brown-Lindsay, Major H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Perring, Sir William George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burman, J. B.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootie)
Pilcher, G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major John Walter
Preston, William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Radford, E. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Homan, C. W. J.
Raine, Sir Walter


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ramsden, E.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remnant, Sir James


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, R. S. (Cumbert'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Clayton, G. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Ropner, Major L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rye. F. G.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sandon, Lord


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Savery, S. S.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Craft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lougher, Lewis
Stuart, Crichton-,Lord C.


Dixey, A. C.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Styles, Captain H. W.


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ellis, R. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden Sir Wilfrid


Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maclntyre, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A
Tinne, J. A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.
Waddington, R.


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Malone, Major P. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, Captain D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Watts, Dr. T.


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wells, S. R.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Grace, John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Grant, Sir J. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Dovon, Torquay)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds Central)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wilson R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
wise, Sir Fredric


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Withers John James


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristrol, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wolmer Viscount


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Womersley W. J.


Hacking, captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E (Chestr', Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis
Wragg, Herbert


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Harrison, G. J. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Young, Ht. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hartington, Marquess of
Pennefather, Sir John



Harvey, G. Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George



Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr.




F. C. Thomson.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 34, line 39, after the word "representing," to insert the words "twenty-five per cent. of."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided : Ayes, 143; Noes, 253.

Division No. 240.]
AYES.
[8. 4p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wotverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Sneil, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M,
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G,
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duckworth, John
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt. -Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Joslah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N. )
Welsh, J. C.


England, Colonel A.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest(Welsh Univer.)
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins, William Martin


Forrest, W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gardner, J. P.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Pethlck-Lawrence F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burman, J. B
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Astor, Viscountess
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Atkinson, C,
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dawson, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Carver, Major W. H.
Dean, Arthur Wellestey


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dixey, A. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Captain victor A.
Drewe, C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cnadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Elveden Viscount


Bennett, A. J.
Chapman, Sir S.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Berry, Sir George
Christie, J. A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bethel, A.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Clayton, G. C.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fermoy, Lord


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Flelden, E. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cooper, A. Duff
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cope, Major William
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Couper, J. B.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gates, Percy


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grace, John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Grant, Sir J. A.




Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rye, F. G.


Greaves-Lord Sir Walter
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Salmon, Major I.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lumley, L. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Macintyre, Ian
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Savery, S. S.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Making, Brigadier-General E.
Skelton, A. N.


Harland, A.
Malone, Major P. B.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Captain D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Meller, R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry C.
Moyer, Sir Frank
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Headlam Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V, L. (Bootie)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Styles, Captain H. W,


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hills, Major John Waller
Morden, Colonel W. Grant
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Homan, C. W. J.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tinne, J. A.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hopkins, J. W. W
Neville, Sir Reginald J
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waddington, R.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wallace Captain D. E.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kinston-on-Hull)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hurd, Percy A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pennefather, Sir John
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Dr. T.


Jacob, A. E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perring, Sir William George
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Jephcott, A. R
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pilcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Preston, William
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Radford, E. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ralne, Sir Walter
Withers, John James


Lamb, J. Q.
Ramsden, E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Womersley, W. J.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Loder, J. de V.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wragg, Herbert


Long, Major Eric
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Looker, Herbert William
Ropner, Major L.



Lougher, Lewis
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 34, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that all commitments of the Road Fund outstanding on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, shall, to the extent of twelve million

pounds, be met otherwise than out of the future revenue of the fund"

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 254.

Division No. 241.]
AYES.
[8. 14p. m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bromfield, William
Duckworth, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Duncan, C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dunnico, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cape, Thomas
England, Colonel A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Clowes, S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Baker, Walter
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Forrest, W


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Compton, Joseph
Gardner, J. P.


Barnes, A,
Connolly, M.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Batey, Joseph
Cove, W. G.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gibbins, Joseph


Bondfiefd, Margaret
Dalton, Hugh
Gillett, George M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Day, Colonel Harry
Gosling, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Dennison, R.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Strauss. E. A.


Greenall, T.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sullivan, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Taylor, R. A.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, G. H. (Mertnyr Tyavil)
Palin, John Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
Townend, A. E.


Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Harris. Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, G. H.
Bees, Sir Beddoe
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Riley, Ben
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Joslah


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Welsh, J C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wiggins, William Martin


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert
Wilson. C. H. (Shefield, Attercliffe


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lansbury, George
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)
Windsor, Walter


Lawrence, Susan
Snell. Harry
Wright, W.


Lee, F.
Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip



Lindley, F. W.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stephen, Campbell



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, E. E.(Leyton)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gunston. Captain D. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Colman, N. C. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut.-Col.Sir F. (Dulwich)


Astor, Viscountess
Cope, Major William
Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad)


Atkinson, C.
Couper, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harland, A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C.(Kent)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gaintbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Berry, Sir George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bethel, A.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Henderson. Lt.-Col. Sir V. L.(Bootle)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bird, E. R.(YorkS, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.


Blundell, F. N.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major John Waller


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dixey, A. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.
Homan, C. W. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Drewe, C.
Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brass, Captain W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elveden, Viscount
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brittain. Sir Harry
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Howard-Bury. Lieut.-Coionel C. K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fielden, E. B.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burman, J. B.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jacob, A. E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
James,Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith. J. F. W.
Jephcott, A. R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newinoton)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gates, Percy
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kidd, J.(Linlithgow)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grace, John
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Chapman, Sir S.
Grant, Sir J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grattan-Doyle,Sir N.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Christie, J. A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Knox, Sir Alfred


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lamb. J. Q.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Clayton, G. C.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cobb Sir Cyril
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip




Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Loder, J. de V.
Pennefather, Sir John
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Long, Major Eric
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Looker, Herbert William
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Lougher, Lewis
Perring, Sir William George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Luce, Maj. -Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Pitcher, G.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Lumley, L. R.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Preston, William
Tinne, J. A.


Macintyre, Ian
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


McLean, Major A.
Radford, E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Raine, Sir Walter
Waddington, R.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ramsden. E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macquisten, F, A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ramnant, Sir James
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Malone, Major P. B.
Rentoul, G. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Margesson, Captain D.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Watts, Dr. T.


Meller, R. J.
Ropner, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rye, F. G.
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Wise, Sir Fredric


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Withers, John James


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, staiyb'ge & Hyde)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nuttall, Ellis
Smithers, Waldron



O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 34, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that such sum shall not exceed twelve million pounds.
I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto).

Colonel ASHLEY: I can accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 141.

Division No. 242.]
AYES.
[8.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Broun, Lindsay, Major H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Astor, Viscountess
Burman, J. B.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Atkinson, C.
Burton, Colonel H. W
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H


Balfour, George(Hampstead)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bennett, A. J.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Chapman, Sir S.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Berry, Sir George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Dixey, A. C.


Bethel, A.
Christie, J. A.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Petterton, Henry B.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Drewe, C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ellis, R. G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Clayton, G. C.
Elveden, Viscount


Blundell, F. N.
Cobb. Sir Cyril
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fairfax, Captain J. G


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Colman, N. C. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fanshawe, Captain G. D


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fermoy, Lord


Brass, Captain W.
Cope, Major William
Fielden, E. B.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Couper, J. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Gadie, Lieut,-Col. Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ropner, Major L.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gates, Percy
Loder, J. de V.
Rye, F. G.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Long, Major Eric
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Looker, Herbert William
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lougher, Lewis
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Goff, Sir Park
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Grace, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Savery, S. S.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Lumley, L. R.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W. )
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Rentrew, W)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macintyre, Ian
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
McLean, Major A.
Skelton, A. N.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gunston, Captain D.W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
styles, Captain H. W.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taskor, R. Inlgo.


Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thom, Lt. -Col. J.G. (Dumbarton)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C.M.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, F. C, (Aberdeen, South)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootie)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tinne, J. A.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hills, Major John Walter
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K.P.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waddington, R.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Homan, C. W. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun. )
Nield. Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nuttall, Ellis
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Watts, Dr. T.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wells, S. R.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Penny, Frederick George
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hurd, Percy A.
Perring, Sir William George
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cin'l)
Pilcher, G.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Jacob, A.E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wise, Sir Fredric


Jephcott, A. R.
Preston, William
Withers, John James


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wolmer, Viscount


Kennedy, A. H. (Preston)
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ralne, Sir Walter
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W. )


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Remnant, Sir James
Wragg Herbert


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rentoul, G. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lamb, J. Q.
Rice, Sir Frederick



Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Compton, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Connolly, M.
Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Ammon, Charles George
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grovts, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Crawfurd, H. E.
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Baker, Walter
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dennison, R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barnes, A.
Duckworth, John
Hardie, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dunnico, H.
Hayday, Arthur


Bondfield, Margaret
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hayes, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
England, Colonel A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Broad, F. A.
Evans Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bromfield, William
Forrest, W.
Hirst, G. H.


Bromley, J.
Gardner, J. P.
Hirst, W, (Bradford, South)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Lesile


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Buchanan, G.
Gosling, Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Clowes, S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenall, T.
Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)




Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, Ernest


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Kennedy, T.
Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)
Varley, Frank B.


Lansbury, George
Scrymgeour, E.
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lindley, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lowth, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wellock, Wilfred


MacLaren, Andrew
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Welsh, J. C.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smillie, Robert
Westwood, J.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, H. B. Lees(Keighley)
Whiteley, W.


Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wiggins, William Martin


March, S.
Snell, Harry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Maxton, James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Murnin, H.
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Oliver, George Harold
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Strauss, E. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W.
Sullivan, Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Sutton, J. E.
Wright, W.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, R. A.



Potts, John S.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Purcell, A. A.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Rebate of duty in case of licence taken out for certain motor vehicles in 1927.)

If any person, having been the holder of a licence for a mechanically-propelled vehicle taken out in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, and charged with duty under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 120, produces on or before the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, to the council of the county or county borough with which the vehicle was registered at the time (as the case may be) of the expiration of the licence, or of the surrender or transfer thereof by him, a statutory declaration to the effect—

(a) that during a specified period, which must in the case of a licence taken mat before the passing of this Act be a period beginning on some date subsequent to the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, and ending on the date of the expiration, surrender, or transfer, as the case may be, of the licence, and in the case of a licence taken out after the passing of this Act be the period during which the licence was held by the person making the declaration, the vehicle was used solely by him for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, or of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupied and for no other purpose;
(b) that he was during the specified period a person engaged in agriculture;
(c) that the vehicle was during the specified period registered in his name; he shall be entitled to be repaid by the council by way of allowance in respect of the duty paid for the licence the following amount in respect of each complete month comprised in the specified period,—

(i) in the case of a licence taken out for one quarter of the year only or for any less period, a sum equal to one-third of
1190
the difference between the duty payable under the said paragraph (5) on a quarterly licence for the vehicle and the duty which would have been payable on such a licence if the vehicle had been chargeable with duty under the scale contained in the paragraph (c) set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act;
(ii) in the case of any other licence a sum equal to one-twelfth of the difference between the full annual duty payable on the licence and the full annual duty which would have been payable on the licence if the vehicle had been chargeable with duty under the scale aforesaid.—[Colonel Ashley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will remember that, during the Debates on the Budget, a Resolution was passed which sought to make level, and, indeed, I hope, does make level, the position of the Scottish farmer as compared with the English farmer. When the Budget was passed last year, owing to conflicting decisions in Courts of law, the Scottish farmer this year was compelled to pay very considerably higher duties for his vans and lorries than the English farmer, and it was considered right and proper to put before the House a Resolution to bring down the Scottish farmer's duties to the level of those paid by the English farmer. That was passed without any discussion worth speaking of, and this apparently rather lengthy and complicated new Clause simply provides machinery whereby the Scottish farmer,
who has already in this year paid an extra duty, should get a refund of that duty, so that he may pay the same amount as the English farmer.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Betting Duty.)

"As from the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, Part II of the Finance Act, 126 (which imposes a duty on betting and on certificates required in respect of bookmakers' businesses and premises), shall cease to have effect"— [Mr. Snowden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This duty was first imposed in the Finance Bill of last year. It met with very strenuous opposition, and the opposition from certain quarters has been continued down to the present time. I remember no new tax that has been proposed in recent years which has united the Opposition as this did. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended it purely as a revenue tax. Although the opposition to the duty raised a moral objection, the Chancellor denied that any moral issue was involved. "Until," he said, "we have covered the whole country with a network of licensed betting houses, until we have legalised all betting, no moral question can arise." I do not propose to cover at all the ground which was trodden so often during the Debates a year ago. I want to justify this Motion for the repeal of the duty upon the actual experience of 12 months' working of the tax. I am prepared to concede that there was no precedent of a similar tax, and therefore no very reliable data on which to form a judgment or to calculate an estimate. At any rate, reasonable people would have admitted that. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not. He proposed, first of all, a uniform duty of 5 per cent. upon all betting, and from all the material that was available he estimated that that would give a yield of £6,000,000. That is the figure he was determined to get. After the introduction of the Budget, and before the Finance
Bill finally passed into law, he amended his proposals, and instead of a 5 per cent. all-round duty—by all-round I mean upon credit transactions and on bating on the racecourse—he submitted a revised rate, and it is very interesting to recall what he said in justifying this new rate.
He said he had better information. He had examined books, he had been able to reach a much safer, surer and stricter estimate than was possible before, and, as the result of this examination of reliable material and sure facts he had come to the conclusion that the original estimate was very much too high and that it would give far more money than he had estimated. He estimated for £6,000,000 and the tax, as first proposed. might raise £10,000,000 or even £18,000,000 and the prospect of a haul like that was one from which he recoiled with horror. Therefore, he proposed to reduce the rate to yield the original sum of £6,000,000. The original estimate was based upon a turnover of £170,000,000, and in order to be on the safe side he took off £50,000,000, which reduced the taxable turnover to 5 per cent., to get the yield of £6,000,000—£120,000,000 at 5 per cent.—which he said he was determined to get. But those further investigations to which I have alluded brought him or his advisers to the conclusion that the turnover was very much larger than the figure he had originally stated, and that instead of a turnover of £170,000,000 it was about £275,000,000, and this new estimate was not the result of conjecture but was, he said, after a close examination of all the available facts. In order to be on the safe side, he reduced the estimated turnover of £275,000,000 to £200,000,000. That was his justification for the reduction of the percentage duty from 5 per cent. to 3½ per cent. upon office betting and 2 per cent. upon racecourse betting. That would give him, he was quite sure, £6,000,000. He said, "It is a sure and certain basis as far as anything can be certain and sure on which we expect to reap this duty." Of course, £200,000,000 at 5 per cent. would have given him £10,000,000. That was the figure from which, I say, the right hon. Gentleman recoiled. He said he did not want to ruin the industry, though why in the name of Heaven betting should be regarded as an industry
I have never been able to understand. Instead of being an industry, it is a parasite upon industry. He did not wish to run the risk of ruining this industry, so he reduced the rate of tax to the figure I have mentioned.
We have had seven months' experience of the duty and, according to the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman a week ago, it has yielded just over £1,250,000. At that rate, the yield for this year will be about £2,500,000, less than half the sum that the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated with so much certainty and confidence just a year ago. What is one of the main reasons why it failed so lamentably to come up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expectations? It was, as I said, sure and certain. I think there is one explanation. In the same reply to which I have referred, the Chancellor stated that the number of licensed bookmakers, that is to say, the number of persons who have taken out licences, is about 14,000. That struck me, when the figure was given, as being very extraordinary. I believe the Committee which inquired into the Betting Duty did not estimate the number of bookmakers of the country at anything like so large a figure. How is it that so many bookmakers' licences have been taken out? The explanation is to be found on the surface. It gives not merely a certain standing—I will not say a certain respectability—but, above all, security to the man who formerly had to do his betting in secret, when he was hunted about from pillar to post by the police. Of course, the licensed bookmaker can only legally do credit betting.
There can be no doubt about it—and I am supported in this by the evidence of a very large number of bookmakers who have written to me from all parts of the country—that men have taken out bookmakers' licences for offices, because you cannot always have a policeman in an office to see what is being done. In these licensed bookmakers' offices, a vast amount of cash betting is being carried on, and upon this no duty is being paid. There is not a day passes but we see in the newspapers reports of bookmakers being brought before the magistrates charged with illegal betting, and in practically every case I have noted that these are licensed bookmakers. A bookmaker wrote to me a week or two ago from a town not 40 miles away and said, "You
can stand in the street of the town any racing day from one till about half-past two, and you will see a constant procession of people going into the licensed bookmakers' offices. They are not going to bet upon credit. They are simply carrying on now, under the shelter of the law, a practice that they formerly carried on in the street." I do not go on the racecourse, but I am told by some people who do that the evasion of the duty on the racecourse is flagrant and obvious to everybody. There can be no other explanation of the fact that the yield of this duty has not come up to 50 per cent. of the Chancellor's confident estimate based upon sure and certain facts. There can be no other possible explanation of the fact that wholesale evasion is going on. I am sure nobody would suppose there is less betting. That I do not think is the explanation. That would be a fatal objection to any tax. Any tax is doomed which is easy of evasion, because those who conform to the tax and legally pay it are being penalised at the expense of those whose consciences are not quite so clear.

Mr. RADFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman include Super-tax in that category?

Mr. SNOWDEN: We are not dealing with Super-tax at the present time. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here yesterday, but I understand that that question was discussed at very great length, and the opposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to encounter yesterday may account for the fact that he has not yet quite recovered his usual genial spirits and good temper. I could never understand why credit betting should be regarded as creditable and respectable, and why cash betting should be regarded as something which was, reprehensible. Betting with cash seems to me to be far more honest and far more respectable than betting, to use the vulgar expression, "on tick!"
I have also seen in the newspapers this very serious matter raised. Credit betting is a very great encouragement to people to indulge in betting far beyond their means, and the fact that we have now 14,000 licensed betting offices in the country must increase the temptation enormously. There was a letter in one of the Yorkshire daily newspapers only two or three days ago in which a man related the case of a young man who had been induced
to bet on credit. When he betted in cash a shilling was the extent of his bet, but he began to bet on credit in pounds, and the result was that he got into debt. Persons carrying on this alleged credit betting in licensed offices must be doing two things: carrying on a large amount of cash betting which evades the duty and encouraging a trade which also, I believe is, to a considerable extent, evading the duty. There never has been a duty imposed in recent years which after 12 months' experience has proved to be such a miserable fiasco as this Betting Duty. It was an amateur proposal a year ago. No respectable financier would ever have proposed it when there were orthodox and respectable means still open for raising the revenue that was needed.
Before the right hon. Gentleman came into the House just now, I mentioned that he refused, 12 months ago, to admit that the moral issue was raised. He said the moral issue could be raised if we covered the country with betting houses or if we legalised all betting. The right hon. Gentleman has covered the country with betting houses, 14,000 of them. I believe there are, I am speaking from memory, only about 8,000 parishes in this country, so that, on an average, we have nearly two betting houses for each parish. Therefore, he has raised half the moral issue. What is he going to do? He is faced by the choice of one of two things. It is quite evident that he is not going to get his revenue from this duty. I do not believe that it has reduced betting in the least. If his estimates were so sure and certain twelve months ago, it means that a great deal of betting, the greater part of the betting, is not paying the tax. What is he going to do? The Chairman of the Board of Customs and Excise, in giving evidence before the hon. and learned Member's Committee, was very emphatic that you could not work a duty on betting unless you legalised all betting, and I am sure that there is nobody who has had any practical experience of taxation matters who would not agree with that statement. It is unjust and unfair to tax one form of betting and not to tax the other. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. Is he going to allow this wholesale evasion to go on, or is he going to propose an alteration in the law for
the legalising of betting of all forms? If he does that, then, according to what he said last year, he is raising the moral issue. If he raises the moral issue in that form, I can assure him that the opposition which he had to encounter yesterday and to-day from his own supporters will be nothing compared to the opposition that he will have to encounter from most influential sections, politically influential sections in this House.
9.0 p.m.
In basing our case for the repeal of this part of the Finance Bill on financial grounds, I am not receding one iota from the non-financial objections which I raised 12 months ago. I am basing our objection to the continuance of this duty mainly on the ground of its financial failure. In all my experience and knowledge of financial matters, I have never known any such miserable failure as this. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully appreciate the magnitude of his failure and the ridiculous mistake that he made 12 months ago when he so confidently predicted after an examination of books and of all the available material, that he must reduce the duty from 5 per cent. to 3½ per cent and 2 per cent., or he would get twice or perhaps three times the money that he wanted? Of course, that was the last thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted. We base our case this evening mainly on the ground that the duty has failed as a fiscal instrument, that it has failed to achieve the one thing for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was imposing it last year, namely, to raise revenue. He may get £2,500,000 this year. Seven of the 12 months have gone, and he has got £1,300,000. I am told by racing men, I do not know myself, that those seven months will be a fair average of the whole 12 months. I know that one of the big races does not come within this period, but others do. At any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be justified if he expects to realise a large amount on the average of the past seven months. It is not worth bothering about. It is not worth the outrage which has been committed upon the consciences and the deep convictions of a very large section of the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said an hour ago that 6d. on the Income Tax would bring in £32,000,000. It would not bring in anything like that, because
the yield of Income Tax has been going down under the right hon. Gentleman's administration.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Through the existence of the general strike.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman would only remember his own responsibility for the general strike, he would not be quite so ready to attribute all his misfortunes and the consequences of his own incapacity, to the general strike. He says that 6d. on the Income Tax would bring in £32,000,000. Let him say £30,000,000. That is £5,000,000 for every penny on the Income Tax. One halfpenny on the Income Tax would have given him the yield which he will get from the Betting Duty, and one halfpenny on the Income Tax would not have needed the employment of an additional officer of the Revenue Department. It would not have increased the cost of collection by a single farthing. Figures were given some time ago of the number of additional officers who had been employed. If a sufficient number of officers of the Revenue Department were employed in dealing adequately with evasion, the result of their efforts would be more than double the yield of this duty. We base our appeal for the abolition of this duty, without in the least raising our general objection to the duty, mainly on the fact that it has been the most miserable financial failure that was ever proposed by a Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) fills me with amazement. I have always regarded him as one who poses as a model and austere financier and as a purist in financial methods. I suggest that not one Member of this Committee would say that a pure luxury is the very first thing to which a financier of such austerity would turn, and the more readily at the time when the finances of the nation are in sore need and, to gain a small party advantage, throw to the winds all his financial theories of austerity of probity and denounce a tax levied on a commodity that is no good to anybody, except affording a little pleasure, and a useful pleasure, in my opinion. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the introduction of this duty was an amateurish performance. Is
he aware that every civilised nation in the world has a Betting Duty except the United States of America, and that it is levied on the turnover of the bet. A Betting Duty is levied in the Dominions of Ontario, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland, West Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, the Cape of Good Hope, the Transvaal, Natal and in Bengal, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Austria.

Mr. COMPTON: What about Moscow?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I said every civilised nation. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that this duty is an amateurish performance by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when every civilised country in the world except the United States have a Betting Duty; and the United States only avoid it because they are rolling in money and do not need it. Surely, he must withdraw that criticism or I shall not be able to place him on the high pinnacle he has put himself as a financier. The second complaint made against this duty is that it has failed. It was imposed to raise money. First of all, has it failed; and, secondly, is it failing? We are told, not by persons who have investigated the question but by persons and papers who are interested in the betting business, that in this country, where betting is more prevalent than anywhere else, we cannot sustain a tax of 2½ per cent. Is the right hon. Gentleman opposite aware that in Australia, for instance, where they have the totalisator, that before any cost of the apparatus or the expenses incurred are taken, the State steps in and takes no less than 9 per cent. of the total amount of the stake placed and do not pay a single farthing to the expenses, not even towards the cost of the collection. Yet forsooth, if we are to believe the wailings of the bookmakers in this country, this industry—it is an industry so far as they are concerned—cannot stand a tax of 2½ per cent. That is nonsense.
I do not admit for a moment, although I have not the figures with me, that it has failed. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ultimately get his money, and I believe he will be able to tell the Committee that the receipts are steadily increasing and are likely to increase. It is quite true that the figures of the
receipts on the introduction of this duty did not come up to expectation, but there were particular circumstances, patent to everybody who really considers it, to account to that. It was started at a time when this country, was suffering directly from the results of the coal strike, when there was less money to spend on all luxuries, and more particularly on this luxury. An attack was made on the duty by the bookmakers, who, in my opinion, have been the worse led section of the community we have ever known. As soon as the duty was put on, what did they do? We had a ridiculous strike of the bookmakers, and the result of their action is that the introduction of the totalisator, which must be anathema if not ruin to them, has been actually brought within the region of practical politics. It is by no means certain that they have not been successful, by the attitude they took in resenting this duty, in preparing the ground ready for the introduction of the totalisator. It looks as thought they are going to bring it about.
What was the next thing they did? As soon as the duty was put on they said, "Do not bet with us, do not come to us, do not be so foolish as to bet with us." Was there ever such folly? What would have happened if the brewers, for instance, had taken such a line? They said, "We do not like this duty; we hate it, but we will share it, and in any case the producers will shove it on to the consumers." That is business, at least I am told it is business. What did these silly fellows the bookmakers do? Instead of saying, "Do not bet with us" they would have said, if they had been sensible people, "This 6d. in the £, we can stand it; we do not like it, but we will share it; "knowing that they would be able to pass it on to the consumer. That is what they should have done. The other charges of a bookmaker, his telephones, his travelling expenses, and all his motor cars in getting to the various race-meetings, he charges as expenses against his business, and he gets it through shortening the odds. That is what he ought to have done with this duty. In my opinion it will reach the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated, and more than reach the amount.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley has called the attention of the Committee to the fact that more bookmakers have taken out licences than was estimated by me in the Report I made as Chairman of the Betting Committee. That is true. I said that the minimum number would be about 10,000. About 14,000 odd have taken out licences. A profit of £250 a year in each case would mean about £3,500,000. The evidence we had was that if the bigger bookmakers make one per cent. profit they are fortunate, the big bookmakers who make one-half per cent. profit say that is all that they want. They said, "How can they pay a tax of 2½ per cent. when they are only making a profit of 1½ per cent.?" The figures I have given show that the total amount of betting, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated at £200,000,000, was a minimum figure, and that considerably more is being staked in this country. If that be so, it is only a question of time before machinery is adopted for the collection of this duty which will work with practically no evasions. I believe a great deal of evasion is going on, but I have not the least doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us that the system of collecting the duty is working well.
The only part that is not working well is that which depends on the honesty of the bookmakers in keeping their books and recording the bets which are made. It is true, I believe, that some of the betting that is now done with some bookmakers is done "on the nod" and, instead of entering it in their books, they either carry the transactions in their minds or enter them on papers which are destroyed, and so cheat the revenue. That, however, can be made a very short-lived device. The Chancellor has only to ascertain by means of his staff, by detectives or otherwise, that some leading bookmaker is playing this game. That bookmaker can be prosecuted, and when his licence is forfeited it will bring home the risks of the practice to some of these big men and stop this dishonesty. It is the same as all dishonesty in the avoidance of duties on tobacco or other dutiable articles, and can be dealt with in the same way. I have not the least doubt that this evasion can be stopped. There is one line of action in
which, I think, the Chancellor and his advisers have made a mistake, and I say so with a certain amount of egotism, because I advised against this course in my report. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's differentiation between betting on the racecourse and betting in an office. He made this differentiation with the laudable idea of benefiting race meetings and the owners of racehorses and those who live by race meetings, and he thought it would encourage people to go to the racecourses instead of to the credit offices. That object cannot be attained by a differentiation in the rate of duty. On the contrary, this provision is leading to a certain amount of jugglery among the bookmakers themselves who try to put bets which ought to bear a 3½ per cent. duty on to the 2 per cent. basis.
A reason why this arrangement will not achieve its object is that in both cases the odds are the same. Practically all the betting in credit offices is starting-price betting and the starting price is fixed by the bookmakers on the course. It is difficult to see why people should go to the racecourse and pay all the expenses of doing so in order to bet with the bookmaker there, when they can get the same odds from the bookmaker in the betting offices. Therefore the motive of the Chancellor, while a worthy one in itself, cannot be attained in this way, and I would suggest making the rate 2½ per cent. or 6d. in the £ all the way round. That seems to be the one flaw in the system which the Chancellor has set up. I wish I knew what were the total receipts during the last month. Last month and the present month are, I suppose, the two most favourable months in regard to the amount of betting that takes place. Racing is now in full swing and already I see signs that the bookmakers are repenting of the very foolish course of action which they have hitherto adopted. The receipts from the Betting Duty are, I am informed, steadily increasing, and I believe, if the present rate of increase is maintained, the full anticipated amount will be shown. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to stick to the duty, which is a duty on a pure luxury. Nobody would be a penny the worse if they did not bet. In fact, people would be better off if they did not bet. I am not, however, an enemy of betting and I go further, perhaps,
than many people because I believe it provides a great change of mind and thought for people who are living monotonous lives.

Mr. WALLHEAD: So does getting drunk.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I believe it provides a certain amount of healthy amusement within reasonable limits. I have no sympathy with the moral objections to it, but I agree in one respect with the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree that ready-money betting is infinitely less dangerous than credit betting to those people who have no sense of moderation. If a man bets on cash terms he has to put up the cash for every bet, but a man who indulges in credit betting and who meets with financial disaster, is tempted to try to retrieve his disasters by plunging beyond his means. In my report I suggested a provision for controlling all betting—putting cash betting on a legal footing and allowing the street bookmaker to have his office, thus freeing our streets from the pest of bookmakers and touts who encourage people to bet who might never do so otherwise. That question, however, does not arise on the present occasion, but I think it is better to raise money by taxing a luxury of this kind rather than by increasing the taxation on necessaries or by raising still higher taxes which are already too high.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but I have been tempted into it by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). He has said that betting helps to relieve monotony, or words to that effect. He must not understand the kind of betting that goes on up and down the country. Otherwise he would know that it is the most cruelly monotonous thing that could come into any community—this betting of sixpences and shillings which ought to be devoted to providing food for families and helping to keep the homes of workers. The hon. and learned Member does not attack this duty on moral grounds. I am old-fashioned enough to attack it on moral grounds. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that
Righteousness exalteth a nation.
When we try to get revenue out of such a practice as betting, I believe we are taking a wrong course. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that. betting can very well be conducted in the betting office without troubling to go to the racecourse. I am sure the promoters of races would have something to say about that. It is on moral grounds that I am attacking this, and I am not grumbling at all about the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not getting his revenue.
On the whole, it is a decided Godsend that it has not been the success that he predicted, and every hon. Gentleman in this House ought to be very well pleased indeed that there was any chance at all of this duty being a complete failure, so that we might return to the old customs we had before desperate remedies were applied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have always understood betting to be a sin, but it is now made out to be a commodity. Indeed, it is made out to be a luxury and an industry, and we had a peep into the minds of many hon. Gentlemen as to how the business is conducted. I rather think the last speaker tripped over himself when he began to talk about this great business, and how, like any other business, they tried to evade the duty and to make as much out of the concern as possible. It was said that the Betting Duty has not had an opportunity and that the main reason why it has not was because of the great coal stoppage. What does that point to? That it is out of the shillings and sixpences of the ordinary working homes that we are expecting to recoup the revenue, and that, when an industry is paralysed and when lock-outs take place, then the revenue is the sufferer through this Betting Duty. I have no hope at all of getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take my view of betting, any more than I have any hope of him and other hon. Gentlemen taking my view of many other things that I hold very strongly indeed.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Surely, if you tax it, you will reduce it.

Mr. BROWN: That is not your view.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Yes.

Mr. BROWN: Well, I did not understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that it was his view that if you taxed it you reduced it. I understood his view was that it was to raise revenue and that every effort would be made to raise it.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I did not go into the details of the morals of betting. My report showed that if betting is a sin, as the hon. Member says, then I started on the assumption that to stop betting is practically impossible in this country, and the only thing to do is to control it.

Mr. BROWN: I am very sorry I did not get that meaning from what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying, and, if that be so, I must withdraw some of the remarks I have been making. At any rate, I still adhere to this, that this duty has been imposed and so balanced as to get the highest amount of revenue, and I was saying that I had no hope that my view would be taken by this Committee, or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish they would. All that I got up to do was to register my protest against the Betting Duty altogether and to express the hope that the revenue will be such that it will not be considered necessary to continue the duty, so that we may get rid of it altogether and resume our old relationships. If we are the only country in the world who does that, I do not think it is any discredit to us. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake when he said that all civilised nations other than ourselves and the United States had such a duty. If he will consult the map of Europe, he will see that he left out a good many countries. He did it very cleverly, because he gave six or seven of the Australasian islands and Governments, so that he might swell the total and make it as big as possible, but he was not able to give us so many countries after all. I am sure I could name more countries to the contrary than were named by the right hon. Gentleman. I have now registered my protest and I hope that there will be a vote on this subject. I trust the It the country, at any rate, and the great body of opinion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to flout, will bring its weight to bear, and will let the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his supporters know that
there is some morality in the nation which is striving after righteousness, even though it may not yet have attained it.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I just want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) about the Committee over which he presided and their recommendations on the question of ready-money betting. My objection to this Betting Duty is that it does not legalise the whole of the betting which takes place in the country. It legalises one form, and I want to know why it does not go further and legalise ready-money betting and thus do away with what is, after all, a differentiation between the wealthy man and the poor man. In the course of my experience as a magistrate, I have had to sit on the Bench from time to time when these cases of prosecution of people for ready-money betting in the street have been brought up, and it has always appeared to me to be a very unfair thing that men who themselves could, and did, do their betting over the telephone with commission agents should sit and adjudicate and fine men for doing something that they themselves were able to do without being prosecuted.
We had a case in my own district just recently, where a man, who had taken out a licence as a bookmaker, put a plate on his door "Registered bookmaker" and certain working people, thinking that because he was a registered bookmaker and had that plate on his door he was entitled to take bets, went into the office and made ready money bets. A raid was made on the office and the man himself was prosecuted in the Police Court and fined £20, and the punters—the working men who had put their shillings or eighteen pence on—were fined 10s. each for doing so. Further, the office was visited, and the betting slips were taken, and, though the man made a request that he should he allowed to have those slips so that he could do the equitable thing and pay out to the people what they were entitled to, he was not allowed to have them, so I am told, though the Inland Revenue officer came down and charged him duty on the slips. I want to know if that is really British justice? Why should we have one law for the rich and one for the poor? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer
thinks it right and proper to make it legal for men to bet on credit over the telephone or on the race-course, why in the world if a man wants to have 1s. on and has the ready money and can afford this little bit of sport, should he run the risk of being hauled to a Police Court and fined 10s. with the probable loss of a day's work? I think that by one stroke of the pen the Chancellor could have clone away with a great deal of the opposition to this duty. I have mixed among working people in my own district and many other districts in the country, and they are bitterly opposed to this Betting Duty and are showing it at the by-elections in the way they are voting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never gave the Opposition a better weapon than he did when he gave them this Betting Duty to play with, and it is being used against the Government. It is being used in the by-elections, and I know the effect which it has had on the votes cast. It is not that the working people object to the duty, what they do object to is this differentiation between the man who passes his shilling in ready money and the man who passes his £10, £20 or perhaps £1,000. It is not in accordance with our sense of British fairplay and justice, and, if the Chancellor deals with this aspect of the duty particularly, he will wipe out much of the opposition of the working classes to it.

Mr. HAYDAY: I intervene for a few moments in this Debate in support of the repeal of this duty, perhaps on different grounds from some of those that have already been mentioned, because I feel, first, that as long as there is a large field of sport you will always have in it a man who desires to lay a wager. I do not think for a moment that heavy taxation will destroy the desire for betting, nor do I think that the absence of taxation will encourage more betting. What I feel about it is the inequality, and the unsatisfactory nature, of the duty itself. A £10 licence is charged to what one may call a struggling bookmaker in the small ring or outside the rings of a racecourse. Now £10 is the cost of a licence in the big ring as well, where bets run into thousands of pounds, perhaps, during the course of the day, as against the odd pounds to the man in the small ring or outside the rings altogether. It is
an unfair principle to levy one £10 licence on these two different kinds of bookmakers.
I do not talk of the sense of justice associated with this kind of taxation, because I feel there is money there to be had. I certainly do not look upon the bookmaker as one of the worst types of citizens in this or any other country. I look upon those engaged in that kind of occupation as having at least as high a moral character as those engaged in speculating on the Stock Exchange, or those who make a bet on a tennis court, at a sculling match, or a boxing match, or on a greyhound racing after the mechanical hare, and I have found amongst bookmakers citizens of a high type who have generally come forward in aid of those who require financial assistance, men of large heart, many of them men of great vision, but their training has made them men of the world whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the whole of the Civil Service staff, would have to be very clever to catch.
The hon. Member who spoke from the opposite benches said that they believed the duty would reduce the volume of betting, and that if one unlicensed man were prosecuted it would intimidate the rest. No. They are artful men who live on their wits, and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be artful, and though he may be credited with being witty and a man of mind and alert, as he may be, when there is injustice in an unequal levying of the duty on a fraternity they are all likely to join together against it. They have a trade union now which is trying to secure that the incidence of that taxation will be a little more equal than it is. I am not one of those who would say that it is bad to tax the turnover in sport and at the same time that it is quite right to tax heavily the beer and alchoholic beverages in the country. Wherever the revenue is available, and if it can be obtained from luxury or any form of enjoyment as against putting an increased volume of taxes on the necessities of life, then my mind is going to turn away from every impost on necessities and towards a greater impost on the luxury side.
One of my constituents made a little statement to me which is typical. He tells me of the difference between the
bookmaker who goes away and the stay-at-home bookmaker—the office man. The hon. Member speaking earlier stated that you have a 3½ per cent. tax on the turnover of the office bookmaker and a 2 per cent. tax on the turnover of the racecourse bookmaker. The hon. Member opposite said that he has an Amendment to make it 2½ per cent. all round. But here is an average statement of the expenses in connection with the two days' race meeting at Newbury. The small bookmaker who goes to that race meeting says that the railway fare for himself and two others to Newbury amounts to £5 10s.; two days' ring and entertainment tax, £6 15s.; two days' cards and marking, £2 3s.; one night hotel for self and two men, £2 5s.; two days' wages for two men—his clerks I suppose—£8. So that the initial cost for two days to this small bookmaker attending at a racecourse is £24 11s. Now that amount is more than the expenses of an office, bookmaker for a week in different circumstances. The office bookmaker's rent is £1 per week; wages of his clerk,£5; his telephone charges, 6s., making in all six guineas for one week, as against £24 11s. for the bookmaker, going away to the racecourse for two days.
The incidence of the levying of a 3½ per cent. duty against 2 per cent for the racecourse bookmaker who may run the risk of catching stumer and finding himself in the Court—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is a stumer?"]—I would not like to corrupt my hon. Friends by leading them astray into the realms of racecourse slang. But you will see, at any rate, that there is a just and a right, grievance. The best thing to do is to repeal the duty. You may try some other form, and I would not be at all averse from looking at it from the point of view of saying, "If you want £5,000,000 from the bookmakers, let your basis of taxation be a proper licence." I quite agree that, with our present loose method and with the present semi-official recognition of betting there is a system creeping in which none of us like. I would make it illegal to take a bet from any person under the age of 20, but, unfortunately, in some places bets are taken from children or from young persons before their minds are sufficiently settled to enable them to appreciate the step they are taking.
Street bookmaking has its serious side in many of the poorer quarters. I would
not support that for a moment, because it is that bad moral atmosphere which is created by that early contamination of the mind which makes it impossible for these children as they grow into manhood and womanhood to have a proper idea as to the limits to which they ought to go, or as to whether they should bet at all. I am not therefore, over-stating the case when I say that that is one of the bad sides to the question. I do say, however, that the bookmaking fraternity and the followers of race meetings are, in the main, as good a body of citizens as are those who gamble in stocks and shares. I believe you will never eliminate the desire for wagering. I have heard people who never bet at all say at some particular instant when something is happening, "I will wager you so and so"—even if it be at draughts. Therefore, it is no use starting out with a theory that if you tax high you will kill the incentive to bet, or that if you have no tax at all and fight betting by the weapon of the law you will kill it. You will not do so. Therefore, you had better see whether you cannot have some incidence of licence or taxation which will gain the support of these people, and which will be fair and even in its application all round. Then I think you will stand a much better chance of securing revenue than you will under the present form of taxation which, as I say, is unfair, uneven and unjust in its incidence.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I have some difficulty in addressing the Committee, because I was not here when the discussion opened, and I am not quite sure what was the procedure which you, Sir, laid down. I understand that you laid it down that there should be a discussion on all the Amendments appearing on the Paper in connection with the Betting Duty. May I ask you, Sir, before I proceed any further, whether it is your intention at a later stage to call upon the Amendment which is down in my name—[NEW CLAUSE (Betting Duty reduction of rate)].

The CHAIRMAN: I will call the Amendment if the hon. Member thinks it worth while, and if he does not get satisfaction in the course of this discussion. This is not an Amendment to a Clause of the Bill. It is a new Clause, and therefore it is open for general discussion.

Sir F. MEYER: I only wish to safeguard my right to ask for a Division, if necessary, of the Committee on my Amendment, because there are certain features in the new Clause which we are now discussing which I should find myself unable to support. I should like, regretfully, to comment on the absence from this debate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): He must be allowed to have some relaxation.

Mr. J. JONES: You were not here to begin with. Why should you regret others being absent?

Sir F. MEYER: I fail to see what that has to do with the hon. Member.

Mr. JONES: It has a lot to do with me. I will tell you later why.

Sir F. MEYER: I say that I regretfully comment on the absence from this debate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the reason that this is the first, and probably the only, occasion on which the House will have the opportunity of discussing the very important change in the taxation laws of this country which was made last year by the imposition of the Betting Duty. The duty does not come up under the ordinary Clauses of the Bill. The subject has to be raised by means of a new Clause, and this is the only occasion which we shall have of discussing it. I do think it is important that the Chancellor should realise the different points of view which Members of this House of all parties have on this Betting Duty, and the reasons which they wish to press upon him for making some change. Some people wish to do away with it altogether and others merely wish to change its incidence. No doubt my right hon. Friend opposite will convey to the Chancellor all the opinions which have been and will be expressed in his absence.
I believe the Chancellor is very proud of this child of his, the Betting Duty. From the answers to questions which he has given in the House of Commons at different times during the past fey months, and from the answers which he has given to various deputations of bookmakers and of Members which have waited upon him, I gather that he is thoroughly satisfied and delighted with
this new child of his. Therefore, I propose to draw the attention of the Committee to what it was the Chancellor last year claimed to be able to do in connection with this duty, and then to compare his prophecies with the actual results which have been achieved. For that purpose I am bound to read to the Committee a very brief extract from the speech which the Chancellor made on the Report stage of this Betting Duty last year. This was the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman was explaining why it was that he intended to reduce the duty from the originally proposed 5 per cent. on turnover to the altered percentage of 3½ per cent. for office betting and 2 per cent. for course betting. The right lion, Gentleman said when he opened the Budget, that he estimated that the turnover on betting was £170,000,000, but that he was advised it would be safer to allow for a shrinkage of betting, owing to the discouragement caused by the duty, to the amount of £50,000,000, which would leave £120,000,000, and that 5 per cent. on that would yield £6,000,000, which was the revenue he estimated. He went on to say:
That is the amount which I hope to achieve, and which I am determined to achieve, if it is humanly Possible.
[An HON. MEMBER: "That has been read!"] I apologise to the Committee if this has been read, and I will not repeat it. I will just emphasise, however, in order to make a point which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of making, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made the alteration from 5 per cent. to 3½per cent. and 2 per cent., said definitely that, after careful examination, he now estimated that there would be a much higher turnover. He added that he had examined the bookmakers' books, and was confident that, on the later basis of 2 per cent., he would still get £6,000,000 and, if it had been left at 5 per cent., he would have got £10,000,000. That was in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 15th July, Col. 749, Vol. 198. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman did not say that he would get this £6,000,000 in the next 12 months which followed the examination of the books. He expected to get £6,000,000 in a full year, and £1,500,000 in the few
months ending 31st March, most of which included the winter jumping season.
My figures, and I speak subject to correction, are merely obtained from answers given to questions, mostly asked by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) and myself. Those figures show that up to 31st March the total receipts from the Betting Duty were as follows: £652,000 from the duty on betting, and £179,500 from the duty in respect of licences issued to bookmakers. The latter figure, I believe, is not quite correct. It was given in January, and there may have been some more licences issued between that time and March. There is nothing in the OFFICIAL REPORT to give me any guidance on the matter. The total is £830,000, which is only just half what the Chancellor estimated that he would get between November and 31st March. That is down 50 per cent. Since then, he has received in April, £259,000, and in May, £289,000. We have not yet got the figures for June, though I was hoping we should have had them in to-night's discussion.
The net result is that for a period of seven months the Chancellor has collected, approximately, £1,400,000. Allowing still five months of flat racing to complete the period of 12 months of the imposition of the duty, he would be extraordinarily optimistic who would suggest that the Chancellor could possibly get a total of £3,000,000 during those 12 months. It would not surprise the Committee to find satisfactory figures for the month of June. I gathered from something the right hon. Gentleman said to me in a friendly spirit, when passing the other day, that that was so, and that the figures were likely to be very good. If, however, he takes the figures for June as being any indication whatever of the likely yield of the duty for a period of months, he is living in a fool's paradise. During the month of June betting is different from any other month. To start with, you have the Derby, which is a race which is betted on by tens and hundreds of thousands of people, who do not bet on any other race. Owing to the booming of the Press and the facilities for transport, it is very largely attended by people who do not bet on anything else.

Mr. McNEILL: I am very anxious to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Is his argument that a tax is unjustified if, in any year, the revenue from it happens to be over-estimated?

10.0 p.m.

Sir F. MEYER: I am most anxious to reply and not to keep the right hon. Gentleman in the dark as to what is my argument. I intend to develop it in a very few minutes, based on the discrepancy in the figures. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the figures which he is going to give us for June, are any indication of the average, he is likely to be misled. Ascot is another meeting in June, which is very much boomed in the newspapers, and to which people go who do not follow racing. Thousands of people attend there, from the social point of view, and, when they get there, they have a bet and perhaps it is the only one which they have during the year. Coming to the argument which I found on the great discrepancy between the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures and the actual amount he is likely to get, I ask, What is the reason why this has fallen so considerably below his estimate? Is it because his estimate of turnover of £275,000,000 was wrong? If that was so, he was wrong by 50 per cent. Will he come forward and seriously tell us that his estimate, which was based on a careful examination of many of the leading bookmakers' accounts, was wrong to that extent? He cannot say that. Is the discrepancy due to the enormous reduction in the volume of betting? When he said that the £275,000,000 might be reduced to £200,000,000 by the operation of the duty, was he wrong? Has it been reduced to about £100,000,000, or by 50 per cent.? That is obviously incapable of proof, one way or another. Anybody would be very bold who would suggest that the amount of betting is only half what it was last year. The only solution which reasonable people can agree to as to the reason for this 50 per cent. reduction is patent. It is evasion. Evasion is going on right and left. It is a very difficult thing to prove, but anybody who is taking any interest in this subject and has discussed it at all with people who go racing, with bookmakers, backers, and sporting people generally, knows perfectly well that the amount of evasion going on is immense.
It is never a very gracious task to remind the Minister, or a Committee, of
remarks which one has made on a previous occasion, and to say, "I told you so." I think I am justified, on this occasion, in reminding the Committee that last year, on the Report stage, when I raised this matter I told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his only chance of collecting a good revenue for this duty, anywhere near his estimate, was to get the good will of the bookmakers; and that the only way to get their good will was by fixing the tax at a rate which they conceived they would be able to pay. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has made the bookmakers his unpaid tax collectors. That cannot be questioned. He has put them in a most extraordinary position. They are unpaid, but they have to collect the tax, because he told us again and again last year that he did not expect the bookmaker to pay, but the backer. He has imposed on the bookmakers a duty at a rate which they say they cannot pay and, as a result, they are evading. When I told the right hon. Gentleman last year that they would evade it, he laughed me to scorn, and told me that the Inland Revenue were up to a trick or two, and would not be bamboozled as easily as that He said:
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth told us how if he were not a moral and respectable Member of Parliament"—
I appreciate the compliment"—
he would evade this duty.
He briefly referred to a method which I put forward last year as to how it would be easy to evade the duty. Then he said:
Really, I hope hon. Members will give His Majesty's Customs and Excise credit for being a little more up-to-date than would be supposed by a question like that. How is it supposed that we collect the vast revenue of this country? It is because we deal by samples with classes of goods. Wherever we find fraud or evasion we punish. This is not only the result of the activities of the Customs and Excise officials. The information on which we act nearly always comes from the trade itself. When an honest trader, and an honest bookmaker, sees himself being undercut—and bookkeepers are just as honest as anybody else"—
and I heartily re-echo that statement—
by the dishonest trader, he never hesitates to give information. If a systematic method of defrauding the revenue, such as the hon. Member suggests, was in practice in any bookmaker's office, there is not a single clerk who would not know about it,
and, if he were dismissed, he would give information and we should act upon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1926; col. 756, vol. 198.]
The right hon. Gentleman is relying on spies in the offices of bookmakers and on bookmakers giving information about each other. If he is relying on that he is relying on a very broken reed. I consider that bookmakers are an honest class, so that the Committee will not misunderstand me when I say that there is honour among thieves. I am not suggesting that they are thieves, but they have made up their minds that they cannot pay the duty or get it out of their clients, and the only way they can carry on their trade is by evading the duty. The best class of bookmakers, the men who keep their books carefully, who have them audited by chartered accountants, who give a proper and accurate return, who pay their debts and never defraud their clients, although many clients keep them waiting a long time, and they have had debts—that class of bookmaker is paying the duty faithfully. But there are hundreds and thousands who change their addresses, who spend large sums in advertising and disappear and defraud their clients, and they are evading the duty the whole time. That is the real basis and ground of the grievance I have against the duty. I have no sympathy with those who oppose the duty on the moral issue. I cannot adopt so high a moral attitude as to say that three or four million of my fellow countrymen are immoral and sinful. I have never said that this duty would ruin racing or horse-breeding; that is a gross exaggeration. But it is a scandalous thing to impose a tax which penalises the honest man and which makes people become tax-collectors without regulating the industry in a proper way.
This duty has been conceived on an entirely wrong basis. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by suggesting an alternative method. I have sympathy with the ideas which were put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. Hayday), who suggested that by a system of graduated licences on bookmakers according to the size of their offices and so on, you could prevent evasion. We might get £3,000,000 in that way, even if we did net get the £6.000,000 which, I believe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will never get.
I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to remarks which were made in another place during the debates some weeks ago on this matter, when a Noble Lord brought in a Bill to licence cash betting. In the course of that debate, two Noble Lords, who are stewards of the Jockey Club, one of them the senior steward, and both of them men of the highest repute in racing circles, clearly and specifically criticised the Government because under this duty, they said to the public and the bookmaker, "We give licences; anybody can have licences; we use bookmakers as tax collectors, but we are in no way responsible as to whether they are honest and pay their debts and whether they are the sort of people who ought to have licences." They said it was a scandal that bookmakers, whom they had again and again warned off Newmarket Heath because they defrauded their clients, can get from the Government a licence which induces people to bet with them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that the giving of a Government licence was not giving a guarantee of a bookmaker. Of course it is not. But, in the eyes of the ordinary man-in-the-street, not the man who is acquainted with racecourses, but the man who does not know much about these things, the fact that a man has been able to get a £10 Government licence does give him a standing which will induce people to bet with him, which they would not do with a man who had been warned off many racecourses. I think the present method of collecting the duty leads to contempt of the law. The duty is evaded on a large scale, and it cannot be enforced. There is no other tax similar to this that has ever been imposed in any other country. The tax raised by means of the totalisator is a different method, and the taxing of cash betting is different. How can you tax the amount that is agreed upon in the course of a telephone conversation and be certain that you are taxing it correctly? If I ring up my bookmaker and put a £10 bet on a horse by telephone, it is only by art honourable agreement between us that he pays me if I win, and I pay him if I lose. You are taxing a contract which is not enforceable, and you will never prevent evasion if you do it in that way. The right hon. Gentleman may be very pleased that he
is to get approximately £3,000,000 out of this duty, and I would like him to get more; but I should like to see the duty paid equally by all who take part in bookmaking. I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman that he should reconsider the whole position, and see if he cannot get the money in future years by a method which lends itself less to evasion and dishonesty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has given us a renewal of the views which he expressed a year ago when this duty was under discussion in the House, and he has shown that he remains of the same hostile opinion about the duty which he expressed in the days when it was first being debated. No one, therefore, can accuse him of any inconsistency in the matter. But I must avow that I, too, have retained the same opinions about this duty which I expressed last year. In a very few words I am going to address myself to some of the principal questions which may be asked upon this subject. One of the first charges made against this tax was that it would prove unworkable. There is no truth in that. We know already that it will not prove unworkable. It may prove inconvenient to some, it may prove unpopular with some, it may not yield the full financial results which we expected from it; but it is not unworkable. The tax has worked smoothly both on the course and in the office. There has been no difficulty in working it on the race-course. No large addition has been required to the staff of the Customs. The tax has passed into administrative operation with hardly a jar so far as the machinery of the State is concerned.
Then the question is raised, Has the tax decreased betting? I am afraid I cannot give an absolute answer to that. It may have decreased to some extent the volume of betting by professional punters or backers. It may be that some of those who were accustomed to bet upon horses without ever going to see a race run may have been deterred by the deadweight charge of the tax on turnover from continuing their indulgence. I have received letters from persons of both sexes, on the whole the ladies predominating, to say they intend to give up betting in view of the fact that on
a very large number of transactions they have shown only a small balance, and that small balance has been absorbed by the tax collector. I have always written to those ladies or gentlemen, as the case may be—[Interruption]—I was making no reference to the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor); I know she represents women, but in this case I was not referring to her. I have always encouraged them to persist in their resolution to discard betting, because, although the Revenue might lose on the cessation of their operations on the turf, I am quite sure it will gain by their increased activities in other directions. It may be there has been a certain check to betting. If so, my sorrows on the Exchequer account are to some extent assuaged by my satisfaction as a moral reformer.
The more serious question is, Has the tax increased illegal betting? That is a sphere into which I cannot attempt to enter at the present time. I am not at all sure that it has increased illegal betting. At any rate, the great mass of bookmakers who have registered themselves have placed us in possession of a great deal of information. We have been furnished with their accounts and their methods of doing business. Some of them have returned not merely the profits of their legal transactions, but also the profits of their illegal transactions, and have desired to pay tax upon them also. No reasonable offer is refused. There is no evidence at present to show that there has been a large diversion, or any appreciable diversion, of betting from legal to illegal channels, from credit to cash transactions. It is quite possible that a certain number of transactions take place which do not always reach the cars of the Revenue authorities, and, as my hon. Friend who spoke last reminded us, conversations over the telephone are not always capable of being brought with certitude to the ear of the Revenue officials.
The question also arises as to how far it will be necessary to modify the Revenue estimates of this tax. By the end of June the tax had yielded about £1,750,000, but the month of June alone realised £356,000.

Sir F. MEYER: The figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given do
not in any way tally with the monthly figures given in his answers to questions over the last eight months. I have carefully taken them down and added them up, and they amount to considerably less.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total yield from November to May amounted to £1,379,000, to which we add £356,000 for June, which makes approximately £1,750,000.

Sir F. MEYER: Including bookmakers' licences?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. Let us see how far the duty has been productive in the present year. In April, the yield was £255,000, in May, £289,000, and in June, £356,000, so that in the first three months of the present financial year—the first quarter—it has yielded £900,000. I agree that it is perfectly clear that it is not going to produce a sum of £6,000,000 in the year, but it was admitted from the very beginning that this duty was speculative in its character, and was of an experimental nature. It seems to be probable that the duty will yield between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 in the present year, and, if we had adhered to the original estimate of turnover, and had imposed a tax at the present rates, that tax would have yielded £3,600,000 in a full year. We were induced to modify and mitigate the tax—to reduce it to 3½ per cent. in regard to offices and to 2 per cent. on the course; and, in consequence, the high yield has fallen off. But still, if the tax yields £3,500,000, that is a very ample and important contribution to the Revenue, gained as it is by the taxation of a luxury and a pleasure the diminution of which could not possibly carry with it the slightest injury to the general well-being of the country.
Has the tax injured sport? There I think there is no doubt that no evil effects such as were prophesied have occurred. It is quite true that the attendances this year are not so good as they were in the comparable months of 1925—I do not think it would be fair to make a comparison with 1926, when everything was paralysed by the strike. The attendances are somewhat below that figure. [An HON. MEMBER: "The weather."] The weather is always bad.
If we look at the statistics, we shall see that the incidence of the tax was not the only factor. For instance, take three periods. The first is the pre-duty period, from 4th May, 1926, the first day of the general strike, to 31st October, just before the imposition of the duty. The drop in comparison with the corresponding period of 1925 was 14.2 per cent. From 1st November, 1926, to 28th February, 1927, the drop in comparison with the corresponding period of 1925–6 was 18.6 per cent. From 1st March, 1927, to 31st May, 1927, the drop in comparison with the corresponding period of 1926 was 2.9 per cent., and with 1925 7.6 per cent. Thus in the six months before the Betting Duty the decline in gate receipts was 14.2 per cent., which was no doubt largely due to the strike and the coal dispute. In the four months after the imposition of the duty the decline is 18.6 per cent. This period included only the final month, November, 1926, of the coal dispute. In the remaining three months the consuming power was little better than during the dispute itself and expenditure was still greatly restricted. In the following three months, which included over two months of the flat racing season of 1927, the decline was 2.9 per cent. in comparison with 1926 and only 7.6 per cent. in comparison with the normal year of 1925. It is also a fact that for some years past the attendances at race meetings have shown a slightly downward tendency. But it is very remarkable that where you have the great South-country meetings you have had very large attendances, and where the meetings have been held in districts where the pinch of the industrial trouble has made itself felt there has been a marked falling off—a very explicable falling off—in spending power. As for Epsom, this year it eclipsed all records. The attendances exceeded by 33 per cent. the attendance of 1925 and still further exceeded the attendance of last year. It is perfectly impossible for anyone to contend that there has been any fatal blow struck at sport.

Mr. BLUNDELL: The figures the right hon. Gentleman has given do not apply to coursing?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are going to have a special discussion on coursing later on. When You turn from the attendance at race meetings to the prices
realised for bloodstock, the sales at Newmarket in December, 1926, [...] in April and June of the present year show average prices in excess of those obtained at the corresponding sales 1925 and 1926. There is a slight falling off in the Entertainments Duty, but nothing appreciable. There is no appreciable alteration in the postal revenue, as far as you can trace the results that belong to the betting traffic, there has been no undue charge thrown upon the public in the cost of collection and there is no reason to suppose that the estimated annual cost of £150,000 furnished to the Select Committee of 1923 will be vitiated. The conclusion is that neither in the reaction of this Betting Duty on other branches of State revenue or expenditure, nor in its effect upon racing or the breeding industry, can any case be shown For throwing away or diminishing the appreciable revenue which will certainly be derived from this tax. As for the bookmakers I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend who spoke earlier in the debate, the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), when he said they had conducted their affairs with extreme un-wisdom. They have done their utmost to alarm people about the working of the tax, to make out that it would no longer be advisable for people to continue the habit of betting. Having done everything they could to cry down betting and discredit the Betting Duty, nevertheless, in spite of having conducted their affairs with so much unwisdom, I gather that a great many of them have not found any reason to retire from the profession. For instance, one must really judge by what people say about themselves. Here is an advertisement taken from the "Sporting Life" of the 3rd of June headed "Duggie Never Owes."

Mr. BUCHANAN: Doogie—your training in Dundee ought to have told you that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not wish to cause any offence to his clients. The advertisement, which is a very striking feature, says:
Our clients won upwards of £100,000 from us over the Derby. Our winning vouchers, like bank notes, were redeemed immediately. Thousands came and saw these proofs that Doggie never owes. Our resources enable us cheerfully to meet all obligations. Years ago we announced that £100,000 reserve was in our bank. Nowadays
even that sum pales into insignificance! The Press has said that our 'stability is as impregnable as the rock of Gibraltar.' Eventually! Why not now? Write to-day—don't delay.

Sir F. MEYER: Has the right hon. Gentleman collected the tax on the £100,000?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A more remarkable advertisement is furnished by Mr. J. John, who gave evidence before us and certainly predicted that the imposition of the duty would mean the complete ruin of the business which he conducted. His advertisement appeared in the "Sporting Chronicle" of the 2nd of June:
All records broken. On Derby Day we had the biggest turnover since we started business 37 years ago. This is indeed a compliment to the J. John system. Little wonder he is known as the lightning settler. If you are not on his books send to-day and open a credit account, or, if you do daily letter business, send your bets by letter to our Scottish address,

Viscountess ASTOR: Aberdeen?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I forbear to give the precise information that the Noble Lady is seeking to obtain. I think, at any rate, with these simple statements made by the parties principally concerned, I have shown that we have not destroyed racing, we have not ruined the bookmaking confraternity, and that we have not prevented the continuance of that practice of betting about which there are so many different opinions. And if without upsetting in any violent way this feature of our national life, and if possibly at the same time somewhat restricting its indulgence we have managed to obtain a substantial revenue, a revenue equal to half the yield of the whole of the duties on tea, if we have been able to add that to the Exchequer in the first year of the imposition of the tax, and in a year when all our affairs are overshadowed by the general impoverishment of the community through what occurred last year, if that is so, there is certainly no cause for receding from our original purpose of imposing this tax and milling sure that it has a fair trial. It has not had a fair trial yet. I assured the deputations who waited upon me at the beginning of the year that I would study the statistics of June attendances and June revenue before making up my mind whether the duty required any revision in the present year. I have given
attention to those June figures, and neither in regard to attendance nor in regard to revenue is there the slightest reason to pronounce that the tax is a failure. It may well be, as my hon. Friend has said that ultimately the duty will realise the financial estimate first placed upon it, but even if it realises a lower sum that lower sum is a necessary contribution to the revenue, and it is about the cheapest money that the British Exchequer gets, and money which least conflicts with the general development of the wealth of the country.
We must have a longer period. We must have an opportunity of seeing the statistics for a full year, including the whole of the flat racing season, and we must have an opportunity of making the necessary deductions in regard to those statistics which it would be proper to attribute to the impoverishment of the population from what occurred last year. Next year, before the Budget is framed, we shall be in a position to survey those results and then, if it be found that the duty at its present rate is too high and that it is possible that a better result a more permanent remunerative result, could be achieved by a somewhat lower figure, it will be the interest of the State to make such modifications as are necessary. For the present and at this moment, I ask the Committee, which last year by very large majorities voted for the imposition of this duty, to make sure by their support of the Government that it is given an opportunity to try it out fairly, and that Parliament next year is put in a position to judge upon the results of a completed year.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to support the appeal that has been made on moral grounds by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown). The case as presented by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is certainly significant, after his close examination of the figures. I anticipated the line that would be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The lighthearted fashion which he adopted as a reformer gives a very clear indication that he has not much emphasis for moral issues. The situation which he has presented is very fairly representative of the jazz sort of business system upon which the country is conducted. Only the other
day, we had a striking illustration of this sort of thing being conducted on a big scale by the departure from this life of one of the most outstanding men who, in juggling even with millions, has left a good number of his colleagues with the impression that, after there is something serious about a business of this kind. And when we find it conducted on such a large scale it is not surprising that working people, who are suffering from adulteration of food and drink, business trickery, should show an increasing tendency to go in this direction. One of the most ridiculous instances was the case of a man who was brought before the magistrate the other day for engaging in this business without a licence, and the magistrate said that it was a most preposterous situation for him to have to try a man for not having a licence for a transaction which was illegal. That is an illustration of the anomalous situation into which we are now getting. The hon. Member from the opposite side of the House who gave the Committee some figures on this matter made no bones of the fact that he was engaged in this business, and he said that those who were bookmakers were as good as those who were gambling on the Stock Exchange. That does not settle a question of character. That is only a comparison.
If you are going to test the moral issue, the proper way to test it is by a more effective illustration. Take a great evil like prostitution, in which so much business is being done that it has become an international evil which the League of Nations is trying to take in hand. Does the hon. Member say that because other civilised nations engage in a licensed system of prostitution that we should copy their example and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt this method of obtaining revenue? I know that the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was directed to the simple point as to the amount of revenue we were receiving from this duty. He said that at the present time there was not sufficient money being derived from it to justify its continuance, but at the same time he said we do not waive the moral principle. I am afraid, if we confine ourselves largely to the question as to how much money we get out of it, we shall begin to lose ground for the moral case. A man who is a real reformer does not
trouble himself with the question as to how much money we are going to get from it, but whether the evil involves absolute disaster to the working-class family circles of the land flow much disaster does the credit system mean to these people? The credit system is the most dangerous feature that can be employed. In regard to the other licensed business, from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer also draws revenue, we find that the credit system was nailed to the counter by the law of the country. It is against the law of the country to have any dealings on credit in the licensed liquor business because it was maintained that that would be an objectionable system and that it was preferable that the money should be paid over the counter.
In this case, the credit system is being defended by the Government in a way that gives a further impetus towards that downward path along which many of our working people are being forced. We have been told about the racecourses and about the concern of the Chancellor to take the line which involves least disturbance. We heard once of a deliverance made by His Majesty himself, that the glory of the Empire was centred in the hearts and homes of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer as an amateur moral reformer—a late starter—has cognisance of the working of this duty, and from the reports which he is receiving he must know something of what is involved in the rush of men and women into the vortex of this dangerous "business"—as bookmakers would term it. Recently in this House a Bill was introduced to prevent children from engaging in this practice. It is not a matter of the personal character of those engaged. The first issue is—are we as a House of Commons representative of the people, seeking to set an example of rectitude? Are we proving our anxiety to place the national business on a proper footing and on a basis that will bear examination? One can find many illustrations of the utter indifference of many Members of this House to any question of this kind. We hear Members treating of its humorous aspects only. That is the measure of the artificial character of the professions which we hear from public platforms.
We hear, time and again, the advocacy of great principles; we hear Members
professing their desire to encourage people in the ways of economy and thrift. Such a proposal as this Betting Duty is a travesty of those professions. One does not need even to take part in the Debates in this House; one only need to follow the gibes and quips and jokes that are passed and the light-hearted, almost ribald manner of some Members of the House in treating questions of this kind, to realise that fact. We have people like the Chancellor of the Exchequer who makes an amusing reference to himself as being "a sort of moral reformer." That phrase is one of his own little touches of humour, but at the same time it is an indication of what he meant when answering a Member on this side who suggested it was in the had weather, he said the weather was always bad. He is one who has studied the weather-cock system, and he knows very well there are varying weather conditions whether he is a betting man or not. He has studied the state of development of our political forecasts, and the possibilities and movements of the tide which might lead to fortune, or misfortune, for he is particularly careful about misfortunes. How can the Chancellor stand up and talk as he has done about balancing the question—though making the admission that he is not receiving so much as he anticipated, and thereby conceding some of the points made—and saying he has at least the satisfaction that he is becoming something of a moral reformer. As one who does feel deeply in making our profession of moral standards and with the great responsibilities of this House, I am perfectly confident that no man or woman associated with this great assembly can contemplate what is really involved by these transactions of which we hear so much—I care not whether it is £3,000,000 or £30,000,000—without seeing that our profiting from this abominable business is the measure of our profligacy, and an abject failure to raise the standards of our people as we ought to do.
Are we not to raise the standards of the people—and I am not talking about party standards now but of the personal responsibility which each man and woman has to Hint to Whom there are appeals made at the opening of this House every day from that great Book? The prophet Isaiah's proclamation was:
Lift up a standard for the people.
God knows it is tragic though you may treat it lightly. There are greater questions than facing a General Election—questions of making sure that we are really standing for great moral purposes—and there are other alternatives than the pursuit of these things. You are bound to recognise that there is the alternative that you can face this in the opposite direction, and instead of deriving revenue from this wretched source you can take the course that we maintained last year, namely, that the thing ought not to be done at all and if you say it cannot be done, I refer you to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, when dealing with the opposition of Members who are against this proposition, he said, "Now I understand the position of the hon. Member perfectly well. Do not tell me, you Members on the Opposition side, that it cannot be done. It can be done. You can say you are going to stand for the stopping of the means of carrying on this transaction and that you

are going to stop it by the post, the telegrams and the Press. Do not say it cannot be done." That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. And that same Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell you whether he means still with his ability to step into the arena—into the very racecourse—and whether he will manage to make this scheme workable. I am confident he is capable of doing that. In the same way, if he were a real moral reformer instead of being chiefly concerned about holding his position in the Government, he would stand up in this House as a man, and denounce it, and if he applied his energies and his enthusiasm on the basis of real moral force in the country against this evil, I am convinced he would make a mighty factor in advancing the real progress of our country.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided : Ayes, 152 ; Noes, 233.

Division No. 243.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfeil, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Astor, Viscountess
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Preston, William


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Baker, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Remnant, Sir James


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Harney, E. A.
Riley, Ben


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Broad, F. A
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cape, Thomas
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Connolly, M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Smillie, Robert


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jones, T.I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dennison, H.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Duckworth, John
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Invarness)
Sullivan, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.


Forrest, W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Taylor, R. A.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R.C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oakley, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Viant, S. P.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Wiggins, William Martin
Windsor, Walter


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Womersley, W. J.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)



Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Williams, Dr. J.H. (Lianelly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Welsh, J. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
T. Kennedy


Whiteley, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Albery, Irving James
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Bainlel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nuttall, Ellis


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
O'Connor, T.J. (Bedford, Luton)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bennett, A. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bethel, A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ormshy-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Betterton, Henry B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Penny, Frederick George


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Blundell, F. N.
Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perring, Sir William George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pilcher, G.


Brass, Captain W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootie)
Raine, Sir Walter


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J, (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rhys, Hon. C.A.U.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Campbell, E.T.
Howard-Bury, Lieut. Colonel C.K.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Major L.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Ceptain Victor A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rye, F. G.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jacob, A. E.
Savery, S. S.


Clayton, G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, L.t.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Couper, J. B.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davidson. J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Long, Major Eric
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Lougher, Lewis
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dixey, A. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Drewe, C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Tinne, J. A.


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elveden, Viscount
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waddington, R.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wallace, Captain D. E


Everard, W. Lindsay
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hulf)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fansnawe, Captain G. D.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)




Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Wilson, R.R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).



Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wolmer, Viscount
Wragg, Herbert
Captain Lord Stanley and Colonel


Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gibbs.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
11.0 p.m.
It might be convenient to the Committee if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say now what his intentions or desires are, and how far he proposes to proceed this evening. It was, I believe, the original intention of the Government to get through the Committee stage to-day. That is clearly impossible, because there are nine pages of Amendments still upon the Paper, and a very considerable number of them are in the names of Members on that side of the Committee. That should be a sufficient reason why we shall not be able to get through these nine pages this evening, unless hon. Members opposite, in their anxiety to get these Amendments through, are prepared to sit until this time to-morrow. There are several Amendments to the Bill, some of which are of great importance. For instance, there is that relating to the Sugar Duty, and there are quite a number of others. It is manifestly impossible to get this Bill, through to-night, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is prepared to give further time. There are a great many highly contentious points in this year's Budget, and we have only had four days' Debate, which is much less time than is usually given. It must be remembered that the Members of the Government party have taken up quite an unusually large amount of time in the discussions on the Bill. Indeed, they took up nearly all the time yesterday in the discussion of a matter in which they were very keenly interested. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make some concession? I think the very least that he might do would be to rise now, or very soon, and then give us at least up to dinner-time on Thursday.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have only proceeded so far in the discussions in Committee on the Finance Bill by what I may call the general good will of the Committee. The Committee has concentrated on the principal Debates and topics, and has allowed the other business to pass rapidly through. I
fully recognise that in this matter the Government are in the hands of the Opposition, and not only of the Opposition but of members of the Committee on their own side in politics. It would be, I think, for the convenience of Parliament if we disposed of this Bill to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think it would be for the convenience of Members, and I do not believe that the public service would suffer thereby. An examination of the various new Clauses discloses three or four points which might well take half an hour each to discuss, but it does not show any prospect of alterations in the Finance Bill because, in the main, except for inconsiderable exceptions, the new Clauses, of course, one not be accepted by the Government. As I say, we are in the hands of the Committee. It is perfectly obvious that if hon. Gentlemen opposite or around us choose to debate these matters, there ere in them ample material to keep us up to a very late hour to-night, and to prevent us from reaching the close of our labours on this Bill. Therefore, I leave it entirely in the hands of the Opposition. If they wish to prolong these discussions until the interruption of business at the dinner hour on Thursday next the Government will not resist them. We should like to complete this Bill, as we have so far conducted it, in an atmosphere of good Parliamentary arrangement on both sides. Therefore, if it be the desire of the Opposition that we should take up till Thursday at dinner time, and if it be understood that we shall get the Committee stage completed, new Clauses and schedules alike, by that hour, and that we should make the best use of our time in the intervals, the Government would propose that we should not sit very much longer to-night, but should resume our discussions on Thursday next.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not, indicate the exact time to which he proposes to sit to-night. The next Motion is on the Sugar Duty. My friends attach considerable importance to that and would not be satisfied with a short Debate on that. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to accept my Motion to report Progress now,
on the understanding that we agree to try and finish the Committee stage and end at the dinner hour on Thursday?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. If by what I call good arrangement and goodwill, we can reach the conclusion of the Committee stage by dinner on Thursday, I should not propose to ask the Committee to sit any longer to-night.

Sir F. MEYER: There are a number of Amendments down in the names of Members of the Government party, and I do not know how far the Opposition would be prepared to concede a certain reasonable amount of time for the discussion of these Amendments. Otherwise, we should have to oppose the Motion to report Progress, as we do not
desire to sacrifice the Amendments we have put forward.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Quarter after Eleven o'Clock.